Unauthenticated transfer pricing order held invalid, with the consequential assessment set aside for lack of prescribed authentication.

An unsigned and unauthenticated transfer pricing order under section 92CA(3) was held invalid because no signed order was produced and the release lacked the prescribed authentication. The Tribunal held that an order not authenticated in the manner required by law is not a valid order, and that this defect vitiated the assessment process. The objection that the faceless assessment timing cured or affected the defect was rejected as irrelevant. The unauthenticated transfer pricing order was quashed, and the consequential assessment could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether an unauthenticated and unsigned transfer pricing order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained in law and whether the consequential assessment could survive.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that no signed transfer pricing order was produced and that the order was released without authentication. It held that an order issued without the prescribed authentication is not a valid order in the eyes of law. The objection based on the timing of faceless assessment was rejected as irrelevant to the defect in authentication. The Tribunal followed the coordinate bench view that proceedings conducted through the e-proceedings mechanism require compliance with the prescribed signing and authentication requirements, and that failure to do so vitiates the assessment process.

Conclusion: The unauthenticated transfer pricing order was quashed and the assessee succeeded.

---