Tribunal Quashes Assessment Orders for Lack of Required Document Identification Number, Appeals Favored for Assessee.

The Tribunal determined that the assessment orders were non-est due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) before signing, as required by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned demand based on these orders. The appeals were allowed in favor of the assessee, rendering other grounds moot.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the assessment orders due to absence of Document Identification Number (DIN).
2. Completeness and timing of assessment orders uploaded on ITBA portal.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of the assessment orders due to absence of Document Identification Number (DIN):
The Tribunal examined whether the assessment orders were invalid due to the absence of DIN. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which mandates that all communications, including assessment orders, must have a DIN unless issued under exceptional circumstances with prior approval. The Tribunal found that the assessment orders did not mention any reasons for manual issuance or any approval from the Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income Tax. The orders were signed without a DIN, which was generated only after uploading the orders on ITBA. The Tribunal concluded that the orders were non-est as they did not comply with the mandatory requirement of quoting a DIN before signing. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd., which held that orders without DIN are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal decided this issue in favor of the assessee, declaring the assessment orders non-est.

Issue 2: Completeness and timing of assessment orders uploaded on ITBA portal:
The Tribunal also examined whether the assessment orders were incomplete when uploaded on ITBA and whether they were passed after the limitation period. The Tribunal noted that the orders uploaded on ITBA were incomplete, with only 4 or 9 pages, while the complete orders were over 270 pages. However, the Tribunal held that the service of incomplete orders on ITBA does not invalidate the orders themselves. The Tribunal stated that the actual service of the orders may be beyond the prescribed period, but this only affects the start of the limitation period for filing an appeal, not the validity of the orders. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer, which held that an order must be communicated to the affected party to be complete and effective. The Tribunal decided this issue against the assessee, holding that the orders were not void on the ground of incomplete service on ITBA.

Conclusion:
Since the Tribunal decided the first issue in favor of the assessee, declaring the assessment orders non-est, it quashed the impugned demand based on these orders. The Tribunal did not address the other grounds on merits, as they became superfluous. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned demand was quashed.

---