Assessment order declared invalid for lacking DIN following CBDT Circular, appeal allowed on this ground.

The Tribunal declared the assessment order invalid due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN), following CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The appeal was allowed solely on this ground, without addressing the other issues raised by the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Denial of benefit of beneficial ownership under Article 11 of the India-Cyprus Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
3. Deduction of interest paid on unsecured loans under section 57 of the Act.
4. Calculation of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 244A of the Act.
5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
6. Validity of the order due to the absence of Document Identification Number (DIN).

Summary:

1. Validity of the Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read with Section 263:
The assessee challenged the final assessment order dated 30.12.2019, arguing it was issued without following the statutory requirement of Section 144C to pass a draft assessment order first. The assessee also contended that the assessment was protective without any substantive assessment, rendering it nugatory. The demand raised was claimed to be unenforceable, citing the Bombay High Court's judgment in Sushil Kumar v CIT. Additionally, the assessee argued that the order was barred by limitation as it was served on 02.01.2020, beyond the statutory deadline.

2. Denial of Benefit of Beneficial Ownership:
The assessee argued that the AO erred in holding that it was not the "beneficial owner" of interest income earned on Compulsory Convertible Debentures (CCDs), thus denying tax treaty relief under Article 11 of the India-Cyprus DTAA. The AO's decision was claimed to be based on preconceived notions without appreciating the evidence and commercial purpose of the entity, as established in Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. UOI.

3. Deduction of Interest Paid on Unsecured Loans:
The assessee contended that the AO erred in not allowing the deduction of interest paid on unsecured loans under section 57 of the Act, which was incurred wholly and exclusively for earning interest income from CCDs.

4. Calculation of Interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 244A:
The assessee argued that the AO erred in calculating interest under these sections while determining the tax liability.

5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c):
The assessee contended that the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under this section.

6. Validity of the Order Due to Absence of DIN:
The additional ground raised by the assessee was that the impugned order did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN), violating CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal found that the order indeed lacked a DIN and was not regularized within the stipulated 15 working days. Consequently, the order was deemed invalid and 'non-est' in law, as per the CBDT Circular and supported by the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT (International Taxation) v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the additional ground raised by the assessee, declaring the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 invalid due to the absence of a DIN. Consequently, the appeal was allowed without adjudicating the merits of the other grounds.

---