Assessment Order without digital or manual signature is non-est and illegal

Assessment Order without digital or manual signature is non-est and illegal

In a recent judgment, Delhi ITAT has held that an Assessment Order without digital or manual signature is non-est and illegal

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5154 (2026) (05) abacus.in ITAT

Important Case Laws relied upon by Parties

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the Final Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

Before the Tribunal the assessee submitted that the impugned assessment order deserved to be quashed as there was no signature either digital or manual found in the Final Assessment Order.  Thus, it was submitted that the impugned assessment order is unauthenticated, therefore, the same was in violation and non-est and deserved to be set aside.

The Tribunal observed that the Assessment Order did not contain the signature of the officer who passed the said assessment order.  

The Tribunal further observed that an identical situation came up for consideration by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal

The Co-ordinate Bench observed that 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.

It was held that non singing of an assessment order is not a procedure flaw that can be cured subsequently after service of the same on the Assessee.  Thus, it was held that such Assessment Order becomes non-est and invalid. 

Following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, the Tribunal held that the unsigned impugned Assessment Order is a non-est and the same is illegal. 

Accordingly, the impugned assessment order was quashed.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.
• Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC
• CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price
• Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities
• No protective addition required when additions is confirmed in hands of searched person – ITAT