TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessment Order Invalidated for Lacking Document ID Number; Jurisdiction and Approval Issues Under Sections 153C, 153D Highlighted</h1> The court addressed multiple issues in the case, primarily focusing on the invalidity of the assessment order due to the absence of a Document ... Assessment order u/s 153C without mentioning DIN - Whether curable defect? - HELD THAT:- Assessment order without DIN number and without any mention regarding non generation of DIN number in the body of assessment order is not a curable defect which can be removed or rectified by way of subsequent generation of DIN number on 14.01.2022. Therefore respectfully following case of PCIT vs. M/s. Tata Medical Centre Trust [2022 (7) TMI 1334 - ITAT KOLKATA] and Abhimanyu Chaturvedi [2023 (8) TMI 378 - ITAT DELHI] we hold that the impugned assessment order is non-est in the eyes of law being passed without complying with the binding circular of CBDT dated 14.08.2019 - Assessee appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an assessment order passed without quoting a Document Identification Number (DIN) on its face, and without recording in the body of the order that DIN was not generated, is valid in law having regard to CBDT Circular No.19/2019. 2. Whether subsequent generation or intimation of a DIN after the date of the assessment order cures the defect and renders the original order valid. 3. Whether the legal conclusion on the DIN issue in one assessment order applies mutatis mutandis to another assessment order with identical deficiency. 4. Whether other grounds pleaded by the appellant (including jurisdiction under section 153C, approval under section 153D, service of notice/demand, failure to provide cross-examination and additions under section 69A) required adjudication in absence of arguments. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of orders passed without quoting DIN (Legal framework) Legal framework: CBDT Circular No.19/2019 (14.08.2019) prescribes that departmental communications/orders must quote Document Identification Number (DIN); paragraph 4 of the Circular states that communications not conforming with paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be treated as invalid and deemed never issued. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal referred to an ITAT decision holding non-compliance with the Circular renders the order non-est in law, and to a jurisdictional High Court decision upholding that ITAT position (concluding the requirement is mandatory and non-compliance invalidates the order). The Tribunal expressly followed those authorities. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the impugned assessment order and the Assessing Officer's own admission that the order was passed manually without a DIN. The Tribunal noted that the body of the order did not mention non-generation of DIN or otherwise comply with the Circular's requirements. The Court considered the intimation sent later which contained a DIN but found no plausible way in which the later intimation cures the absence of DIN in the substantive order itself or satisfies the Circular's mandatory phrasing requirement. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An assessment order lacking DIN on its face and not indicating non-generation of DIN in the order body violates CBDT Circular No.19/2019 and is invalid ab initio. Obiter - Observations about the intimation letter not being capable of supplying the missing mandatory element of the substantive order. Conclusions: The assessment order passed without quoting DIN on its face is non-est in the eyes of law and therefore invalid for non-compliance with the binding CBDT Circular. Issue 2 - Whether subsequent generation of DIN cures the defect (Legal framework) Legal framework: The Circular's prescription and paragraph 4 treating non-conforming communications as invalid; administrative practice does permit generation of DIN but Circular mandates presence of DIN in the body of the order as an integral formal requirement. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on earlier decisions (including the High Court ruling referenced above) that refusal to include DIN in the order cannot be cured by subsequent administrative action or later issuance of an intimation bearing a DIN. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that a later-generated DIN (intimated after the date of the order and after expiry of limitation) does not retroactively validate an order which, on its face, fails to comply with the Circular. The Tribunal specifically rejected the contention that an intimation containing a DIN could be treated as part of the substantive order sufficient to meet the Circular's mandatory requirement, observing that the revenue failed to show how a post-hoc intimation satisfies paragraph 2 of the Circular. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Subsequent generation/communication of a DIN does not cure the defect of an original assessment order that fails to quote DIN as required; such orders remain non-est. Conclusions: Subsequent generation or communication of DIN cannot validate an assessment order that was originally issued without DIN and without required notation in the order body; the order remains invalid. Issue 3 - Application to another assessment order with identical deficiency (Legal framework & reasoning) Legal framework: The mandatory nature of the Circular applies uniformly to departmental orders; principles of consistency and mutatis mutandis application are appropriate where facts and defects are identical. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied the same line of authority to the second challenged assessment order. Interpretation and reasoning: The representatives agreed that the legal issue (non-mention of DIN) was identical between the two assessment orders. Given the identical defect and the binding effect of the Circular and relevant precedents, the Tribunal applied its earlier conclusion to the second assessment order without separate, detailed discussion. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where two assessment orders are factually identical regarding non-inclusion of DIN, the legal consequence (invalidity) applies to both. Conclusions: The second challenged assessment order suffering the same DIN deficiency is also non-est in law; the conclusion in respect of the first order applies mutatis mutandis to the second. Issue 4 - Non-adjudication of other grounds in absence of argument (Procedural/decisional limitation) Legal framework: The Tribunal ordinarily decides only those points on which parties make submissions; appellate bodies may decline to adjudicate points not argued. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal recorded that no arguments were advanced by either side on the remaining grounds (e.g., timing of satisfaction under section 153C, validity of approval under section 153D, cross-examination, additions under section 69A). In absence of adversarial submissions, the Tribunal declined to adjudicate those grounds. Ratio vs. Obiter: Procedural ratio - Unargued grounds need not be decided and are left open for future adjudication if pressed with appropriate arguments. Conclusions: Other grounds raised by the appellant were not adjudicated for want of argument; only the DIN-related grounds were decided. Final Disposition (as derived from conclusions above) The Tribunal held that assessment orders issued without quoting DIN on their face and without recording the non-generation of DIN in the body of the orders contravene CBDT Circular No.19/2019 and are invalid; subsequent issuance or intimation of DIN does not cure the defect. The Tribunal applied that conclusion to both challenged assessment orders and remitted the consequence that those orders are non-est in law. Other substantive grounds were not adjudicated due to absence of arguments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
