Non-service of Order & Its Unsigned Copy Uploaded on ITBA Portal Don’t Make Sec. 263 Proceedings Invalid | ITAT

Case Details: Ramasamy Sathyan Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - [2024] 163 taxmann.com 519 (Chennai-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Jagadish, Accountant Member
  • S. Sridhar, Adv. for the Appellant.
  • R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 153C. Later, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), under section 263, passed assessment order on the assessee. The assessee contended that the original assessment order was non-est as it did not contain the signature of AO and was not served upon him. The assessee had furnished his email ID for communication, but he did not receive the order. No demand notice was served to the assessee, and thus, the original assessment order was non-est.

Aggrieved by the order, an appeal was filed to the Chennai Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that while passing the assessment through the online (ITBA) portal, there is no mandatory requirement to manually send the assessment order to the assessee as it was a duplication of work. The unserved and unsigned order uploaded to the ITBA portal was a mere mistake, and the unsigned and non-service of the order did not vitiate the proceedings under section 263 of the Act.

Under section 263 of the Act, the order from AO is not required to be mandatorily served upon the assessee. The proceedings under section 263 are not invalid in case of non-service of the order and unsigned order of the Assessing Officer. The requirement under section 263, i.e., for initiating revision or assuming jurisdiction by the PCIT, to call for the records and, after examining the same, considers the order passed therein by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue having satisfied that it is a fit case for inquiry in enhancing the assessment.

In the instant case, the PCIT held that the AO had omitted to consider the share profits of the assessee in the original assessment proceedings and invoked the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee’s contention that the unsigned and non-service of order vitiates the entire proceedings under section 263 is not justified.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Pr. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 335/194 ITD 272 (Mumbai – Trib.) (para 12).