Assessment orders and demand notices without Document Identification Numbers declared legally invalid under CBDT Circular 19/2019

The ITAT Amritsar quashed assessment orders and demand notices issued without Document Identification Numbers (DIN) as required by CBDT Circular 19/2019. The tribunal held that assessment order under sections 144/147 and demand notice under section 156 were legally invalid due to absence of DIN numbers in the documents. Additionally, the section 148 notice was quashed for lack of proper application of mind by authorities, citing discrepancies between recorded reasons and approval regarding escaped income quantum. The assessee's appeal was allowed, with all impugned orders ceasing to have legal effect.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the assessment framed under sections 144/147 without mentioning DIN as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019.
2. Validity of the mechanical and non-application of mind in granting statutory approval for reassessment.
3. Treatment of total bank deposits as gross turnover and application of 8% net profit rate.
4. Additional grounds of appeal regarding discrepancies in recorded reasons and approval amounts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Assessment Without Mentioning DIN:

The primary issue in the appeals was the non-mentioning of the Document Identification Number (DIN) in the assessment orders and demand notices issued under sections 144/147 and 156, respectively. The assessee argued that this omission violated the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which mandates that any communication issued by the tax authorities must contain a DIN. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order and demand notice lacked a DIN, and subsequent generation of a common DIN did not rectify this deficiency. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the absence of a DIN rendered the assessment order and demand notice invalid, as they were not in compliance with the CBDT circular.

2. Validity of Mechanical Approval for Reassessment:

The assessee also challenged the validity of the approval granted for the reassessment proceedings, arguing that it was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind. The Tribunal examined the recorded reasons and the approval form, noting discrepancies in the amounts mentioned. The recorded reasons cited transactions totaling Rs. 1,70,59,886/-, while the approval mentioned only Rs. 22,36,520/-. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the approving authority did not apply its mind, as evidenced by the variance in figures and the undated recorded reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under section 148 was invalid due to the lack of proper approval.

3. Treatment of Bank Deposits and Application of Net Profit Rate:

The assessee contested the treatment of total bank deposits as gross turnover and the application of an 8% net profit rate on these deposits. The Tribunal, however, did not delve into the merits of this issue, as the appeals were decided in favor of the assessee on the legal grounds related to DIN and approval discrepancies.

4. Additional Grounds of Appeal:

The assessee raised additional grounds concerning the discrepancies between the recorded reasons and the approval amounts. The Tribunal admitted these additional grounds as they were legal in nature and went to the root of the proceedings. Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the discrepancies further supported the lack of proper application of mind by the approving authority, reinforcing the decision to quash the reassessment notice.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for both assessment years, holding that the assessment orders and demand notices were invalid due to non-compliance with the CBDT circular on DIN and the lack of proper approval for reassessment. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the other grounds of appeal, as the legal issues were dispositive.

---