Unsigned Assessment Order is Void Ab Initio; Section 282A Mandates Signature for Validity.

Issue

Whether an assessment order communicated electronically but bearing no signature (neither physical nor digital) is valid under the Income-tax Act, particularly in light of the authentication requirements under Section 282A(1).

Facts

Assessment Year: 2021-22.
The Order: The Assessing Officer (AO) passed a final assessment order (likely following directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel under Section 144C).
The Defect: The order served on the assessee was not signed in any manner whatsoever. It neither bore a manual signature nor a digital signature (DSC) of the AO.
The Defense: The Department likely argued that the order was valid as it was issued through the ITBA portal or that the defect was curable under Section 292B.

Decision

The Tribunal/Court ruled in favour of the assessee and quashed the assessment order.
Mandatory Requirement: The Court held that Section 282A(1) of the Income-tax Act creates a mandatory obligation: every notice or other document issued by an income-tax authority “shall be signed”.
Electronic vs. Paper: The Court clarified that the term “signed” cannot be restricted to paper documents. Even if a document is communicated in electronic form, it must be authenticated (digitally signed) in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Fatal Defect: An unsigned order is legally non-existent. The lack of a signature is not a mere procedural irregularity curable under Section 292B; it goes to the root of the document’s validity and authenticity.
Outcome: Since the assessment order lacked any signature, it was declared null and void and was annulled.

Key Takeaways

Signature is the Soul: A judicial or quasi-judicial order has no legal force unless it is signed by the authority passing it. An unsigned draft or text file is not an “order.”
Digital Signature Mandatory: In the e-assessment regime, the Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) of the AO serves the same purpose as a handwritten signature. Its absence vitiates the proceedings.
Section 282A Interpretation: This section facilitates electronic communication but does not waive the requirement of authentication.

IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’

Danieli and C Officine Meccaniche SPA

ACIT^*

George Mathan, Judicial Member
and Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member

IT Appeal No. 2509 (Kol) of 2024
[Assessment year 2021-22]

AUGUST 29, 2025

Soumyadip Roy Choudhry, AR for the Appellant. Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR for the Respondent.

ORDER

George Mathan, Judicial Member.- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act”) dated 08.11.2024.

2. Shri Soumyadip Roy Choudhry represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Praveen Kishore, DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee has challenged the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessment order is not signed and therefore is invalid. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the DRP passed an order in the case of the assessee u/s 144C(5) on 13.09.2024. It was submitted that consequently, the Assessing Officer has passed an order and has issued a communication dated 30.10.2024 which reads as follows:

3.1 It was submitted that the said communication shows that the assessee u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) has been passed by DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata and the said is forwarded herewith. It was submitted that the covering letter which had been a DIN is a signed document. The assessment order which has there attachment thereto and which is in a word format does not have the name of the Assessing Officer much less signature. The ld. AR drew our attention to page 1780 which is the covering letter, page 1781 which is the said assessment order and 1796 which is the last page of the assessment order. It was submitted that the said document does not contain signature nor it has DIN. It was submitted that every communication has to have a DIN. The covering letter has the DIN and the attached assessment order did not have a DIN. The ld. AR further drew our attention to the assessee filed along with the appeal which is ad idem, the order is not in the word format except for the first page wherein the details of the assessee is mentioned, the said order reads as follows:

3.2 It was submitted that the assessment order is dated 08.11.2024 and it has a separate DIN. However, the said assessment order also is not signed. The name of the Assessing Officer is there as Ronit Chakraborty, Circle1(1), IT, Kolkata but there is no signature neither there is a digital signature. It was submitted that as the assessment order is not signed, it was prayed that the assessment order is liable to be quashed. When this was put before the ld. CIT(DR), the ld. CIT(DR) has referred the matter to the ld. CIT(IT), Kolkata who has responded as follows:

3.3 It was submitted that the communication having been sent through digital mode and in view of the provisions of section 282A(2) of the Act and Rule 127A of the IT Rules 1962, the name and office of the designated Income Tax Authorities are printed and stamped. The same is to be deemed to be authenticated. It was the submission that even the assessment order dated 08.11.2024 was a technical glitch and the assessment order passed and served on 30.10.2024 was to be considered. It was the submission that the assessment order is liable to be treated as valid. In reply, the ld. AR submitted that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Philips Electronics Nederland B.V v. ACIT (International Taxation) [IT Appeal No. 134 (KOL) of 2023, dated 30-4-2025] wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has in para 6 & 7 held as follows:

“6. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the order passed by the DRP and the assessment framed thereafter giving effect to the direction of DRP by the Assessing Officer. At the outset, we found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions given by the ld. DRP, is without signature of the concerned Assessing Officer, which itself is not maintainable as the same is nullity and invalid. This issue has already been decided by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee before us in the case of Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd (supra), wherein the Tribunal has mentioned that, “signing of an assessment order by the Assessing Officer is a mandatory requirement and not merely a procedural formality and it is not a curable procedural defect which can be fixed by signing of order after service of same on the assessee.” The relevant observations of the Tribunal in this regard are as under :-

16. The Id. Departmental Representative referred to the provisions of Rule 127A i.e.the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The Id. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order communicated to the assessee originated from the designated E-mail ID of the Assessing Officer, therefore, in terms of rule 127A, the said document shall be deemed to be authenticated. The said argument is desultory and not in unison with the provisions of section 282A of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 282A of the Act are reproduced herein below:

“282A: Authentication of notices and other documents:

(1) Where this Act requires a notice or other document to be issued by any income-tax authority, such notice or other document shall be signed and issued in paper form or communicated in electronic form by that authority in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed.

(2) Every notice or other document to be issued, served or given for the purposes of this Act by any income-tax authority, shall be deemed to be authenticated if the name and office of a designated income-tax authority is printed, stamped or otherwise written thereon.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a designated incometax authority shall mean any income-tax authority authorised by the Board to issue, serve or give such notice”

The aforesaid section is with respect to authentication of notices and other documents le orders/summons requisitions/communications etc. Sub-section (1) makes it obligatory that where any notice or other document is required to be issued under the provisions of the Act, the same shall be signed and issued by the competent authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed. The section is unambiguous, specifies signing of notice or other documents mandatory and the manner of signing procedural. Therefore, the Board has issued instructions from time to time laying down the procedures inter alia for signing of the notices and the assessment orders. Sub-section (2) of section 282A of the Act explains the connotation of expression “authentication”. Thus, signing of document and authentication of document carry different meaning. Signing of document denotes committing to the document, whereas, authentication of document relates to genuineness of origin of document. If signing and authentication would mean the same, then there was no need for the Legislature to lay down the requirement of signing the documents viz, notices, orders etc. in sub-section (1) and explain the purpose of authentication in sub-section (2) of section 282A of the Act. If argument of the Revenue is accepted, then the provisions of sub-section (1) to section 282A would become redundant.

17. Lastly, the Revenue has tried to take shelter under section 2928 of the Act. The said section cures the procedural defects or omissions. The section does not grant immunity from noncompliance of statutory provisions, Non signing of an assessment order is not a procedural flaw that can be cured subsequently. The order is complete only when it is signed and released. The date on which the order is signed by the Assessing Officer is the date of order. If Revenue’s contention is accepted and the Assessing Officer is allowed to sign 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 Co-ordinate 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 2928 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.

20. Since, we have granted relief to the assessee on the legal ground raised in ground no. I of appeal, the other grounds raised in appeal on merits have become academic, hence, not deliberated upon.

21. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

7. Respectfully following the observations of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal made in this regard, we allow the issue raised by the assessee in additional ground holding that the assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to the directions of the ld. DRP, is not maintainable as the assessment order is not authenticated by the concerned authority with his signature. In our opinion the said order unsigned order is invalid and is hereby quashed. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.”

3.4 It was the submission that the order is liable to annulled as the same is not signed.

4. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the section 282A shows that the words used therein are as follows:

“282A: Authentication of notices and other documents:

(3) For the purposes of this section, a designated income tax authority shall mean any income-tax authority authorised by the Board to issue, serve or give such notice”

4.1 It specifies that where the Act requires notice and other documents is issued by any Income Tax authority, such notice or other document shall be signed and issued in a paper form or communicated in electronic form. The stand of the revenue is that only if the notice or other document is issued in the paper form, the same is to be signed and if it is not in the paper form but communicated in the electronic form, then only the name, address and designation of the authority is to be printed. This does not hold water in so far as the word used is “and before issuance of the paper form or communicated electronic form”. This means that in whichever form the communication is done, the notice or document must be signed. The provisions of rule 127A which reads as follows:

“127A. [Authentication of notices and other documents. [Rule 127A inserted by the Income-tax (Third Amendment) Rules, 2017, w.e.f. 23-3-2017.]

(1) Every notice or other document communicated in electronic form by an income-tax authority under the Act shall be deemed to be authenticated,-

(a)

in case of electronic mail or electronic mail message (hereinafter referred to as the e-mail), if the name and office of such income-tax authority-

(i)

is printed on the e-mail body, if the notice or other document is in the e-mail body itself; or

(ii)

is printed on the attachment to the e-mail, if the notice or other document is in the attachment, and the e-mail is issued from the designated e-mail address of such income-tax authority;

(b)

in case of an electronic record, if the name and office of the income-tax authority-

(i)

is displayed as a part of the electronic record, if the notice or other document is contained as text or remark in the electronic record itself; or

(ii)

is printed on the attachment in the electronic record, if the notice or other document is in the attachment, and such electronic record is displayed on the designated website.

(2) The Principal Director General of Income-tax (Systems) or the Director General of Income-tax (Systems) shall specify the designated e-mail address of the income-tax authority, the designated website and the procedure, formats and standards for ensuring authenticity of the communication.

Explanation. – For the purposes of this rule, the expressions-

(i)”

electronic mail” and “electronic mail message” shall have the same meanings respectively assigned to them in Explanation to section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of2000);

(ii)

“electronic record” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (t) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of2000).]”

4.2 Rule 127A refers to notice or other documents communicated in electronic form both the said provisions being section 282A and rule 127A is in regard to authentication of notice and other documents. Admittedly, the order dated 30.10.2024 does not contain the details as to the assessment order etc. which has normally columns referred to PAN number, name, address, status, residence, date of hearing, section and sub-section under which the order is passed and the date of order. The said order attached with the communication dated 30.10.2024 does not even contain the PAN number of the assessee. Obviously, the said assessment order allegedly contained no data in regard to the assessee.

Now, the said order has been sent in a word format, the provisions of rule 127A talks of electronic mail or email or attachment to any email. The rule admittedly only explains how the communication in electronic form is to be done. It is well-know that the rule cannot override the Act. The provisions of section 282A of the Act was amended in respect of word “signed” by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01.06.2016 from the term “signed in manuscript by the authority” to the simple term “signed” and issued in paper form or communicated by electronic form by that authority in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. Therefore, signing of a document or a notice is one of the compulsory requirements as per the provisions of section 282A(1) of the Act. The said term “signed” as mentioned in to section 282A admittedly cannot be restricted to issuance in a paper form. The signing of the notice or other document relates to the document or the notice in whichever form communicated. In the present case, as it is noticed that the assessment order is not signed in any manner whatsoever either the document issued along with communication dated 30.10.2024 or the assessment order dated 08.11.2024, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Philips Electronics Nederland B.V (referred to supra), the assessment order passed is annulled and is hereby quashed.

5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.