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 communication of DIN is superfluous and cannot cure the defect. Following Delhi HC precedent in Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd., communications without DIN have no legal standing under the 2019 Circular. The tribunal quashed the impugned AO order, deeming it never passed, and allowed the assessee's appeal, rejecting the department's argument about simultaneous DIN generation.

---

---

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. 19/2019

The 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.

---