2012 (4) TMI 353 - AT - Income Tax

Unsigned assessment order u/s 143(3) - valid or not - revenue contested that since the tax has been determined and demand notice issued and served if the assessment order remained to be unsigned it is merely a procedural irregularity curable under the provisions of section 292B, it is the service of demand notice which is crucial and such failure would invalidate proceedings - Held that - Provisions of Sec.143(3) of the Act contemplates that the AO shall pass an order of assessment in writing. The requirement of signature of the AO is therefore a legal requirement. The omission to sign the order of assessment cannot be explained by relying on the provisions of Sec.292B of the Act in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order under Section 143(3) due to the absence of the Assessing Officer's signature.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) due to the Absence of the Assessing Officer's Signature:

The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment order dated 10/12/2007, claiming it was not signed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The CIT(A) dismissed this plea, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT, which held that the statute does not require the service of the assessment order but only the notice of demand. The CIT(A) concluded that the unsigned order was a procedural irregularity curable under Section 292B, as the demand notice and computation form were signed and served.

The assessee, however, cited the Supreme Court's decision in Smt. Kilasho Devi Burman v. CIT, where an unsigned assessment order was deemed invalid. The Tribunal noted that in the cited case, the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of a signed assessment order for its validity, irrespective of the signed demand notice.

The Tribunal found that the present case was similar to Smt. Kilasho Devi Burman, where the absence of a signed assessment order rendered the assessment invalid. The Tribunal also rejected the revenue's reliance on Section 292B, stating that the requirement of the AO's signature is a legal necessity, and its omission cannot be cured under Section 292B. The Tribunal held that the unsigned assessment order could not be considered in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Act.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the unsigned assessment order was invalid, and the appeal of the assessee was accepted on this ground. Other issues raised by the assessee were not considered.