2023 (12) TMI 280 - AT - Income Tax

AO's order without DIN number in body is invalid and loses validity despite subsequent communication

ITAT Delhi held that an AO's order without a DIN number mentioned in its body is invalid and loses validity. The tribunal ruled that subsequent separate ... Validity of AO’s order with no DIN mentioned - scope of subsequent issue of DIN orders afterwards - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the AO’s order shows that it is clear in the body of AO’s order, no DIN number is mentioned nor there is any reason of not mentioning the DIN number in order of the AO. Is such a situation, the AO order will lose its validity. Subsequent separate communication of DIN is a superfluous exercise. As regards reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court by the Ld. DR , we find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd [1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] has held that if two views are possible one in favour of the assessee is to be adopted. In this regard, we are referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. [2023 (4) TMI 579 - DELHI HIGH COURT] communication relating to assessments, appeals, orders, etcetera which find mention in paragraph 2 of the 2019 Circular, albeit without DIN, can have no standing in law, having regard to the provisions of paragraph 4 of the 2019 Circular - thus given the language employed in the 2019 Circular, there is neither any scope for debate not is there any leeway for an alternate view. Thus we hold that the impugned AO order is invalid and shall be deemed to have never been passed. Accordingly, we quash the impugned AO order. Further, the issue that a simultaneous DIN number was generated and communicated have considered in Abhimanyu Chaturvedi [2023 (8) TMI 378 - ITAT DELHI] forwarding of the intimation of generation of the DIN in ITBA is only a subsequent action and that is not part of assessment order. The manner in which the word ‘communication’ is defined shows every notice, order, summons, letter and any correspondence from Tax authorities should have a DIN quoted and it is for this reason that the Intimation issued about the DIN of assessment order itself has a DIN quoted on it. The generation of DIN subsequently and generation of intimation to be sent to assessee are of no consequence for the purpose of assessment and raising the demand - Assessee appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the assessment order due to non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 regarding mandatory DIN.Summary:Issue 1: Validity of the Assessment Order Due to Non-Compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019The primary issue raised by the assessee was the validity of the assessment order dated 27.12.2019, which lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The assessee contended that the absence of DIN rendered the assessment order null and void. The Revenue argued that the order was communicated to the assessee with a DIN through an intimation letter dated 31.12.2019.The Tribunal examined the contents of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, emphasizing that any communication issued by the Income-tax Department after 01.10.2019 must include a computer-generated DIN. The Circular provides exceptions for manual issuance under specific circumstances, requiring prior written approval and reasons documented in the file. Paragraph 4 of the Circular states that non-conforming communications shall be treated as invalid and deemed never issued.The Tribunal found that the assessment order did not mention a DIN nor provided reasons for its absence, contrary to the Circular's requirements. The subsequent communication of DIN was deemed a superfluous exercise. The Tribunal referenced the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd., which held that communications without DIN are non-est in law.Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the simultaneous generation and communication of DIN did not comply with the Circular's mandate. The Tribunal cited its decision in Abhimanyu Chaturvedi vs DCIT, reiterating that the assessment order must mention the DIN before it is signed.Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid and quashed it. Other grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic and did not require adjudication.Conclusion:The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the assessment order was quashed due to non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 regarding mandatory DIN.