We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic • Quick overview summary answering your query with references• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced • Includes everything in Basic • Detailed report covering: - Overview Summary - Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars] - Relevant Case Laws - Tariff / Classification / HSN - Expert views from TaxTMI - Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Assessment order under section 143(3) invalid without mandatory Document Identification Number per CBDT Circular 19/2019 The ITAT Delhi held that an assessment order passed under section 143(3) without a Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Assessment order under section 143(3) invalid without mandatory Document Identification Number per CBDT Circular 19/2019
The ITAT Delhi held that an assessment order passed under section 143(3) without a Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular 19/2019 was invalid. The circular required all communications to have DIN generated from ITBA system, with exceptional manual communications requiring prior written approval and regularization within 15 working days. Following the Bombay HC precedent in Ashok Commercial Enterprise, the tribunal ruled that subsequent DIN generation cannot cure the initial non-compliance with mandatory requirements, rendering the assessment order invalid and deemed never to have been issued.
Issues Involved: 1. Validity of the assessment order dated 31.12.2019 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 regarding Document Identification Number (DIN).
Summary:
1. Validity of the Assessment Order: The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 31.12.2019, which was completed at a total income of Rs. 14,78,43,610/-, including additions under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The assessee further appealed, challenging the validity of the assessment order due to non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019.
2. Compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019: The primary issue raised by the assessee was the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the assessment order, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Circular requires all communications, including orders, to bear a DIN, except in exceptional circumstances with prior approval and proper documentation. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order did not quote any DIN, nor did it include the required statement about manual issuance with the approval of the Chief Commissioner.
Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal referenced the case of Smt. Sharda Devi Bajaj & Anr., where similar issues were considered, and it was held that the absence of a DIN rendered the communication invalid. The Tribunal emphasized that the CBDT Circular's requirements were clear, and any communication not conforming to these requirements would be deemed invalid and never issued.
CIT(A)'s Stand: The CIT(A) argued that the assessment order was issued manually with the approval of the CCIT(C) Delhi and that the DIN was generated within 15 working days. However, the Tribunal found this explanation insufficient, as the assessment order did not comply with the specific format and requirements outlined in the Circular.
Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order dated 31.12.2019 was invalid due to non-compliance with the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the assessment order was set aside. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as infructuous.