Revenue's Appeal Dismissed Over Lack of DIN: Section 263 Order Upheld for AY 2016-17

The Bench dismissed the Revenue's miscellaneous application challenging an order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act for AY 2016-17. The Revenue argued the absence of Director Identification Number (DIN) in the revisionary order favored the assessee. However, the CIT(E) clarified manual order compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Bench found no mistake in the original order, rejecting the Revenue's claim of generating a DIN number without substantiating compliance with the circular. The application was dismissed, upholding the original order.

---

---

Issues:
The judgment involves a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue challenging an order passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AY 2016-17, specifically focusing on the absence of DIN in the revisionary order and compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019.

Issue 1: Absence of DIN in the revisionary order
The Revenue sought rectification of the ITAT order, arguing that the order favored the assessee due to the absence of DIN in the revisionary order passed by the CIT(E) Kolkata. The CIT(E) clarified that the order under section 263 was passed manually and communicated to the assessee through system, fulfilling the requirements of circular number 19/2019 issued by CBDT.

Issue 2: Compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019
The Counsel for the assessee contended that the impugned order was manually passed without a DIN and did not comply with the CBDT circular. The Chief Financial Officer of the assessee trust affirmed that they did not receive the final order or DIN, and screenshots from the IT portal showed only the manual order without a DIN intimation letter. The Counsel referred to a template from the ITBA screen and a judgment of the Delhi High Court to demonstrate the Department's ability to track email delivery.

Conclusion:
The Bench dismissed the Revenue's miscellaneous application, noting that there was no mistake apparent from the record in the order passed by the Bench. Despite the Revenue's claim of generating a DIN number, they failed to substantiate compliance with the CBDT circular. The application was thus rejected, affirming the original order.

---