Tribunal invalidates order for lacking DIN, rules in favor of assessee due to delay condonation.

The appeal was admitted for adjudication after the delay of 61 days was condoned due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found the order passed by CIT(E) invalid as it lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN) and did not comply with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee based on the invalidity of the order, without delving into the merits of the case. The decision was pronounced on 18th July 2022.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Jurisdiction of CIT(E) to invoke provisions of section 263 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Validity of the order passed by CIT(E) without a Document Identification Number (DIN).

Detailed Analysis:

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 61 days due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court had directed that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 be excluded for computing the limitation period. Considering this directive and the explanation provided by the assessee, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication.

Jurisdiction of CIT(E) under Section 263:
The primary ground of the appeal was the challenge to the jurisdiction assumed by CIT(E) for invoking section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee also raised an additional ground concerning the validity of the order due to the absence of a DIN, which was admitted by the Tribunal as it went to the root of the matter.

Validity of the Order Without DIN:
The additional ground raised by the assessee contended that the order passed by CIT(E) was null and void as it did not contain a DIN, violating CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal examined the circular, which mandates that all communications issued by the Income-tax Department must contain a DIN unless issued under exceptional circumstances, which must be explicitly mentioned in the communication.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was issued manually and did not mention any exceptional circumstances or approval for not quoting a DIN. As per para 4 of the circular, any communication not in conformity with the circular is deemed invalid and considered never issued. The Tribunal found that the impugned order failed to adhere to these requirements, rendering it invalid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the order passed by CIT(E) was invalid due to the absence of a DIN and non-compliance with the CBDT circular. Consequently, the additional ground raised by the assessee was allowed, and the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee. The grounds relating to the merits of the case were not adjudicated due to the decision on the legal issue. The appeal was pronounced allowed on 18th July 2022.

---