Delay in uploading assessment order and DIN requirement: oneday upload/DIN delay does not invalidate an order made within limitation, writ dismissed

Delay in uploading an assessment order or generating a DIN does not extend or reset the limitation under Section 153(3) because that provision governs only the making of the assessment order; therefore a oneday delay in uploading or DIN generation will not invalidate an order made within the prescribed period. The court reasoned there is no statutory requirement that an order must be uploaded or communicated on the same date it is made, and different statutory timelines for earlier assessment stages reflect distinct consequences. A factual dispute over alleged antedating may be raised before the appellate authority; writ petition dismissed for failure to use statutory alternative remedy.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN).
2. Compliance with Section 282 of the Income Tax Act and Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules.
3. Timeliness of the assessment order under Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Allegations of antedating the assessment order.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Order Due to Absence of DIN:
The petitioner argued that the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 was void ab initio because it lacked a DIN, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. The circular requires every communication related to assessment to bear a computer-generated DIN unless exceptional circumstances are recorded in writing with prior approval from the Chief Commissioner/Director General. The petitioner cited similar cases where the absence of a DIN rendered the orders invalid. The court, however, found that the assessment order was uploaded on the web portal on 01.04.2022, and the DIN was generated on the same day, indicating only a one-day delay. The court concluded that this minor delay did not invalidate the assessment order, as the primary requirement under Section 153(3) was the making of the order within the prescribed period, not its communication or uploading.

2. Compliance with Section 282 of the Income Tax Act and Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules:
The petitioner contended that the order's uploading on the web portal conflicted with Section 282 of the Income Tax Act and Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, which govern the service of orders. The court noted that the assessment order was uploaded on 01.04.2022 and communicated on 03.04.2022. The court held that the requirement under Section 153(3) was the making of the order by the given date, not its communication. Therefore, the court found no conflict with Section 282 and Rule 127, as the order was made within the limitation period.

3. Timeliness of the Assessment Order Under Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act:
The petitioner argued that the assessment order was barred by limitation as it was communicated after 31.03.2022. The court analyzed Section 153(3), which provides a timeline for making the assessment order but does not specify a timeline for its communication or uploading. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in CIT v. Mohd. Meeran Shahul Hameed, which distinguished between making, issuing, and receiving orders. The court concluded that the assessment order was made on 31.03.2022, within the prescribed period, and the subsequent communication delay did not render it invalid.

4. Allegations of Antedating the Assessment Order:
The petitioner alleged that the assessment order was antedated, as it was uploaded on 01.04.2022 but purportedly made on 31.03.2022. The court found this to be a factual issue disputed by the revenue and suggested that the petitioner could raise this plea before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The court emphasized that it had not commented on the merits of the case and dismissed the writ application, directing the petitioner to avail the statutory alternate remedy.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ application, holding that the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 was made within the limitation period prescribed under Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act. The court found that the minor delay in uploading and generating the DIN did not invalidate the order. The petitioner was advised to challenge the order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and raise any factual issues there.

---