TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was confirmed. 2. Brief facts as culled out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.19,25,000/- in the bank account during the demonetization period 9th November 2016 to 30th December 2016. It was noticed that the assessee has not filed ITR because it was a partnership firm till 31.03.2016 and was dissolved on 01.04.2016 and fter 01.04.2016, it was run as a proprietorship concern of Mr. Vinod Sharma, erstwhile partner of the assessee firm. It is stated that he has duly filed the ITR for the relevant A.Y. 2017-18 and also explained the credits appearing in his bank account to the tune of Rs.80,33,277/-. However, the ld. Assessing Officer ignored all the material submitted by him and has pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment as ex-parte despite multiple replies filed by the assessee. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law the Ld. CTT(A) has erred in stating that the appellant has not made the submission before the Assessing Officer and failed to note that objections to an unsigned and time-barred could only be challenged before the CTT(A). 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or rescind any of the grounds above at the time of or before the hearing." 5. We have heard the ld. AR who at the very outset submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has committed legality by not deciding the ground No. 2 before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee has raised the issue of assessment order being without valid signature. It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned. We have noticed that the assessment order of the case before us is also having a note in the last page of the assessment order which reads as under: "Note: if digitally signed, the date of digital signatures may be taken as date of document." 8. The identical issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in Outsystems Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) and the relevant observation of the Hon'ble Tribunal contained from para 4 onwards are extracted below as under: "3. Per contra, Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila representing the department vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. The ld. DR prayed for time to verify whether the impugned assessment order as per Departments record is in fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. vs. DCIT 157 taxmann.com 705 wherein on similar set of facts the Coordinate Bench held the unsigned assessment order as invalid and quashed the same. The relevant extract of the findings of the Tribunal in the said case are as under:- "14. Signing of an assessment order by the Assessing Officer is a mandatory requirement and not merely a procedural formality. Unless, the order is signed it cannot be said to be complete. Once the order is signed digitally or manually, as required, the order is complete and the date of signature on the order shall be the date of passing of the order. Here we would also like to refer to the relevant provisions from the Code of Civil Proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment order now considering it to be procedural deficiency, still the order would suffer from the defect of limitation and would be without jurisdiction. 18. In the case of Vijay Corporation (supra), the Coordinate Bench in a case where the assessment order served on the assessee was not signed by the Assessing Officer, held that requirement of signature of the Assessing Officer is a legal requirement. The omission to sign the order of assessment cannot be cured by relying on the provisions of section 292B of the Act and held the order invalid. 19. Ergo, in facts of the case and documents on record, we hold the unsigned impugned assessment order served on the assessee invalid and quash the same." 7. In f....