2023 (4) TMI 1235 - AT - Income Tax

Appeals allowed due to absence of Document Identification Number

Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited, Teleperformance Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5 (3) (1), Mumbai

The appeals challenged the final assessment orders for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the orders. ... Validity of order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) without quoting DIN - acceptability of manual final assessment order without DIN - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13), it is noted that the order neither contains the DIN in the body of the order, nor contains the fact in the specific format as stated that the communication is issued manually without a DIN after obtaining the necessary approvals. Therefore we are of considered view that the impugned order is not in conformity with CBDT circular. The contention of the ld DR was that the failure to generate and allocate DIN in this case is a mistake or at best, a defect and/or an omission, which ought not to invalidate the assessment proceedings. Though there is no specific provision under the Act which mandates quoting of DIN, the intention of the legislature is very clear from the stringent language used in the circular that for the purpose of audit trail DIN is mandatory and without DIN any communication is deemed to have never been issued except for the exceptions contained therein. We are therefore unable to agree with this contention of the revenue. Appeal of assessee allowed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Assessment Order due to absence of Document Identification Number (DIN).Summary:Issue 1: Validity of the Assessment Order due to absence of Document Identification Number (DIN)The appeals challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19. The assessee, engaged in IT enabled services, filed returns declaring NIL income under normal provisions and book profits under section 115JB. The returns were processed, and scrutiny was initiated. The Transfer Pricing Officer made adjustments, and the Assessing Officer (AO) passed a draft assessment order with disallowances and adjustments. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld most adjustments, leading to the final assessment order.The assessee contested the final order on legal grounds, primarily focusing on the validity of the order due to the absence of a DIN. The final order was passed manually without a DIN, contrary to CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which mandates quoting a DIN in all communications. The assessee argued that the manual order did not follow the procedure for exceptional circumstances outlined in the circular, making the order invalid.The Department contended that the order was regularized by generating a DIN through a separate intimation, which should be considered part of the order. However, the Tribunal noted that the circular requires the DIN to be quoted in the body of the order and that any non-conforming communication is deemed invalid.The Tribunal referenced the Delhi High Court's decision, which emphasized that communications without a DIN are non-est in law unless exceptional circumstances are documented and approved. The Tribunal found that the AO's manual order did not comply with these requirements, rendering it invalid.For AY 2018-19, similar facts and findings applied. The Tribunal concluded that the orders for both assessment years were invalid due to non-compliance with the CBDT circular, and therefore, the appeals were allowed.Order pronounced in the open court on 24/04/2023.