ITAT Delhi Annuls Entire Reassessment Over Unsigned Digital Notices

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has once again reinforced the mandatory nature of digital signatures in e-assessment proceedings. In Sunil Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi), the Tribunal set aside reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 after holding that the notices and orders issued through the e-proceeding portal were invalid because they were not digitally signed by the Assessing Officer (AO).

By following earlier rulings such as Navyug Technologies Private Limited Vs. ITO and Outsystems Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, as well as CBDT Instruction No. 1/2018, the ITAT held that the defect in not digitally signing the notices and orders is fundamental and renders the entire reassessment void ab initio.

Background of the Appeal

The appeal arose from the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 20.05.2025 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16.

The assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment framed under Section 147, specifically contending that:

  • No valid notice under Section 148A(b) was issued,
  • The order under Section 148A(d) was defective, and
  • The notice under Section 148 was invalid,

because all of these were unsigned digitally and therefore non-est in law.

Grounds Raised by the Assessee

The assessee’s grounds, in substance, were:

  1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings
    The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding reassessment under Section 147 when the very foundation—valid notices and orders under Section 148A(b), Section 148A(d) and Section 148—was missing.

  2. Unsigned Notices and Orders
    The notice under Section 148A(b), the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 were not digitally signed by the AO. Hence, they were claimed to be non-existent in law, making the resultant assessment order void-ab-initio.

In addition, the assessee filed additional legal grounds challenging the reassessment strictly on the legality of these unsigned digital communications.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that:

  • The additional grounds go to the root of the reassessment’s validity.
  • They involve purely legal issues, not requiring fresh factual investigation.
  • Under the ratio of NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT (229 ITR 363), such legal grounds can be admitted at the appellate stage.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, agreed that these additional grounds were purely legal. Relying on NTPC Ltd. (supra), the ITAT formally admitted them for adjudication.

Facts Regarding Issued Notices and Orders

The assessee placed on record copies of:

  • Notice under Section 148A(b) dated 20.03.2022,
  • Order under clause (d) of Section 148A dated **30.03.2022`, and
  • Notice under Section 148 dated **30.03.2022`.

According to the Ld. Counsel:

  • All these communications were issued through the e-proceeding platform of the Income Tax Department.
  • None of these documents bore a digital signature of the AO.
  • In an e-assessment framework, manual signing of such documents is not contemplated or permitted.

The argument was that the entire reassessment exercise, being conducted electronically, had to comply strictly with the digital protocol laid down by CBDT, especially CBDT Instruction No. 1/2018.

Reliance on Past ITAT and High Court Rulings