ITAT Remands Appeal After Faceless CIT(A) Dismissed It as “Duplicate” Based on Unsigned Earlier Order:

ITAT Remands Appeal After Faceless CIT(A) Dismissed It as “Duplicate” Based on Unsigned Earlier Order SLT Energy Ltd., which had merged with Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd. was assessed under section 143(3) for AY 2012-13. The company filed an appeal before CIT(A), but during migration to the faceless appeal system in 2020, the appeal appeared again as “pending” in NFAC’s electronic records. Between 2023 and 2025, NFAC issued several notices calling for submissions. The assessee repeatedly informed the department that essential documents, Form-35, grounds of appeal, statement of facts and even a copy of the original assessment order, had been misplaced during the merger. The portal displayed an appellate order passed by CIT(A), but it bore no signature. CIT(A)'s Ruling: During the faceless proceedings, the CIT(A) sought clarification from the jurisdictional AO, who confirmed that the earlier appeal had been disposed of through a detailed order. Relying on this confirmation and the fact that no documents were traceable in the migrated NFAC file, the CIT(A) concluded that the appeal pending before NFAC was merely a duplicate entry created during system transition. So, the appeal before CIT(A) was dismissed without deciding the merits. Issue before Tribunal: Whether the faceless CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the pending appeal as infructuous based solely on an unsigned earlier order visible on the GST portal and without providing the assessee with missing appeal documents or a proper opportunity of a hearing. Tribunal Held: The Tribunal held that an unsigned appellate order cannot be regarded as valid. It was observed that the assessee had requested copies of essential appeal documents several times, but these were never provided. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal mechanically as a “duplicate” without verifying whether the earlier order had actually been signed, pronounced, or legally issued, and without addressing obvious inconsistencies such as differing dates of the underlying assessment order referred to in notices. These circumstances reflected lack of proper verification and inadequate application of the mind. Due to these deficiencies and because several additions remained unadjudicated, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter for a de novo appellate decision. The CIT(A) was directed to provide all available documents to the assessee, examine both the earlier order and the complete factual record, grant the opportunity of being heard, and thereafter pass a reasoned order. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below