TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s bad in law and liable to be quashed for the reason that the same is barred by limitation. 1.2 The order passed by the learned Assessing Officer ("AO") is bad in law and liable to be quashed for the reason that the same is not line with the statutory procedure prescribed in sections 144(C) 13 of the Act, wherein the assessment order shall be issued in conformity with the direction of the Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'). 3. The learned DR had placed on record a report of the AO as regards the final assessment order whether it is time barred or not. The report of the AO reads as follows: "Ground No. 1: The order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in Law and liable to be quashed for the reason that the same is barred by limitation. Comments of AO: With regard to grounds raised by the assessee, the timeline of the case is as follows: Particulars Date Draft assessment Order ' 29.03.2021 Objection before DRP by assessee 26.04.2021 The assessee has uploaded/updated the objection 30.04.2021 FAO has passed the assessment order 30.04.2021 Order of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court 09.12.2021 Final order passed by NFAC 28.02.2022 Final order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Section 144C(13). This makes it clear that the assessee should not raise such procedural issues when the same is not expressly provided in the act. The provision u/s Section 292BB is squarely applicable in the case and it is clear that the assessee has cooperated throughout the assessment proceedings and replied to all hearings from the beginning of assessment. Assessee never raised any objection to any jurisdictional fact before and hence the assessee as per section 292BB is precluded from taking up a view that notice was served upon him in time. It is also brought to your good self's notice that in faceless assessment the procedure is covered by 144B (XXIX), the section of which is reproduced as below: Section 144B (XXIX): "77w assessment unit shall, in conformity with the directions issued by the DRP under sub-section (5) of section 144C, complete the assessment within the time allowed in sub-section (13) of section 144C and initiate penalty proceedings, if any, and send a copy of the assessment order to the National Faceless Assessment Centre;" The compliance of 30 days can be done as per section 144B paiX). However as per 144(0a), the extract of which are reproduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers in queue, as the uploading of the order arises only after signing of the order. Affixing the digital signature on the order has nothing to do with any system issue, as has been imputed. iii) The issue raised involves "issue of notice" and not "service of notice" as contended by the Ld AO. An order gets issued only it is signed. Since the impugned order has been signed on 1.03.2022, it could not have been issued on 28.02.2022, as claimed by the Ld AO. iv) The contention of the Ld AO that the approval in the system was given on 28.02.2022 and that should be reckoned for limitation is legally untenable. The Law requires the AO to pass the order by 28.02.2022, which has not been done thereby rendering the order barred by limitation. 4.5 At Para 5 of the AO's report, the Ld AO has contended that the issue raised is a procedural issue and is covered u/s 292BB of the Act. The contention of the Ld AO is wrong. As submitted at Para 3.8 above, passing of the order beyond the limitation date is a fundamental error and is not a curable defect under Section 292B of the Act. Completion of the assessment proceedings within time, by affixing the signature on the order within the limit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d been digitally signed on 1-4-2021, date of notice will be 1-4-2021. * M/s. Kontoor Brands India Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 4(3)(1) Bangalore(IT(TP)A No. 214/Bang/2022) - Bangalore ITAT * Sharad Garg vs. Income-tax Officer (136 taxmann.com 36) - Delhi High Court Suman * Jeet Agarwal vs. Income-tax Officer (143 taxmann.com 11) - Delhi High Court 7. Applying the principles laid down in the judicial precedents, the date of the order is the date on which the order is digitally signed, i.e., 01.03.2022, which is beyond the time limit and hence the impugned order is barred by limitation. 8. An order passed contrary to the provisions of Section 144C of the Act and failure to follow the binding procedure would render the order without jurisdiction and void-ab-initio. Passing of the order beyond the limitation date is a fundamental error and is not a curable defect under Section 292B of the Act. In this context, we rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India, ITA No. 275/2015, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that Section 292B of the Act cannot save....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed is a procedural issue and is covered under section 292BB of the Act. The contention of the AO is wrong. As mentioned in para 8 (supra), passing of the order beyond the limitation date is a fundamental error and is not a curable defect under Section 292B of the Act. The completion of the assessment proceedings within time, by affixing the signature on the order within the limitation period is a fundamental requirement, which has not been waived u/s 144B of the Act, as imputed by the AO. 12. The Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Ramani Suchit Malushte Vs. UoI and Ors. in WP No. 933/2022 (judgment dated 21.09.2022), in the context of time limit for filing an appeal stated that "unless digital signature is put by issuing authority, that order will have no effect in eyes of law". It was held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court that only on the date on which the signature is affixed by issuing authority, time to file appeal would commence. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court reads as follows: "3. It is petitioner's case that the order in original dated 14 Rs. 11 November 2019 which was impugned in the appeal filed before Respondent No. 3 has not ....