Assessment Order Manually Signed Due to Technical Issues With Digital Signature is Valid | ITAT

Case Details: Mytheenkunju Muhammed Kunju Kandathil Jewellers vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - [2024] 160 taxmann.com 630 (Cochin-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Manomohan Das, Judicial Member & Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member
  • Jyothison J., CA for the Appellant.
  • Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the assessee objected to the unsigned assessment order, questioning its authenticity. However, upon review, a physically signed copy by the Assessing Officer was discovered.

In reply to the objection, the AO explained that technical glitches can hinder digital signatures. Thus, in such instances, orders are manually signed after electronic generation. Moreover, copies of digitally signed notices under sections 274 and 271A, along with delivery success reports, were submitted to show compliance.

The matter then reached before the Cochin Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held sometimes digital signatures don’t work because of technical problems. When this happens, the order is printed and signed by hand. It was also clarified that only the main part of the order is typed in, and the system fills in other details like the date, PAN, DIN, etc. This ensures that nobody can change anything, including the date.

To further buttress the point, a copy of the notices along with the successful delivery report was furnished. It was also explained that orders were, besides being uploaded, also mailed to the assessee using his registered email ID.

There was no inconsistency between section 282A and rule 127A. While the former postulates that any notice or other document issued under the Act shall be authenticated, the latter provides for the manner thereof. The two provisions are to be read in conjunction and harmony.

Section 282A(1) prescribes that the sign and issue in paper format or communication in electronic format by the authority shall be in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. Section 282A(2) further provides that if the name and office of the designated income-tax authority are printed, stamped or otherwise written on any notice or document by any income-tax authority, the same shall be deemed to be authenticated.

Additionally, under rule 127A, if the name and office of the income authority are printed in the body of the email or an attachment accompanying the transmission of a notice or other document or if it is displayed as part of an electronic record or on an attachment to an electronic record, it will be considered authenticated provided that the email is sent from the email address of the income tax authority or displayed on its designated website.

It was clear that the law has provided for deemed authentication in view of the transmission of the documents electronically from a designated email address or per a designated website. The name of the officer, along with the designation, was clearly printed on the assessment order. That is, not only is the assessment order signed physically, but it is also deemed to be authenticated.

Therefore, there was no case by the assessee that the conditions of rule 127A were not complied with as the AO stated both uploading and transmission through email ID on the date of passing the assessment order and which aspect was not in dispute.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1963] 91 ITR 18 (SC)
  • Bhagirath Aggarwal v. CIT [2013] 351 ITR 143 (Ker)
  • CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)
  • Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC)
  • CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)
  • CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC) (Para 6.2) – followed.
  • Kilasho Devi Burman v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 214 (SC) (para 6.1) distinguished