Unsigned assessment order under IT Act is invalid and cannot be rectified after service on assessee, rules ITAT

The ITAT Delhi held that an unsigned assessment order is invalid and non-existent. The tribunal found that the impugned order for AY 2022-23 was unsigned both on record and on the ITBA portal. It ruled that non-signing is not a curable procedural defect and cannot be rectified after service on the assessee. Relying on precedent, the ITAT quashed the unsigned assessment order, declaring it void.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether an unsigned assessment order under the Income Tax Act, 1961 constitutes a valid order.Whether non-signing of an assessment order is a procedural defect curable under section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The legal effect and date of an assessment order in the absence of a digital or manual signature.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The unsigned assessment order is "in fact no order" and therefore invalid and nonest in the eyes of law.Signing of an assessment order by the Assessing Officer is a "mandatory requirement and not merely a procedural formality" and the order is incomplete without such signature.Non-signing of an assessment order is not a procedural flaw that can be cured subsequently under section 292B of the Act.The date of the assessment order is the date on which it is digitally or manually signed; absence of signature means the order has no valid date.Unsigned assessment orders served on the assessee are invalid and liable to be quashed.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically sections 143(3), 144C(13), and 292B, alongside the mandatory requirements under CBDT Instructions No. 1/2018 mandating digital signatures on e-assessment orders.Reference was made to the quasi-judicial nature of assessment orders requiring strict compliance with statutory formalities including signature for validity and enforceability.The Court relied on precedent from coordinate Benches emphasizing that signing of orders is a legal requirement akin to the mandate under Order XX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which requires judgments to be dated and signed at the time of pronouncement.The Court rejected the contention that section 292B could cure non-signing, clarifying that it does not grant immunity from non-compliance of statutory provisions, especially when the omission affects jurisdiction and limitation.The decision aligns with prior rulings holding unsigned assessment orders as invalid and non-binding, reinforcing the principle that an order must be signed to be "complete" and legally effective.

---