2025 (7) TMI 1816 - HC - Income Tax

Absence of DIN on Assessment Order Invalidates It; ITAT Directed to Rehear Appeals with New Evidence Allowed

Skyway Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dy. / Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5 (1), Mumbai.

HC held that absence of DIN on the assessment order affects its validity and must be addressed. The issue was not considered in the impugned ITAT orders, ... No DIN appearing on the assessment order - HELD THAT:- It is clear beyond doubt that the issue of DIN has not been considered or dealt with at all in the Impugned Orders disposing of the appeals. It is expressly clarified that the cause/reason for the same have not been gone into. This is a matter which goes to validity of the assessment order, and the root of the matter, and hence ought to be permitted to be urged. Whatever may be the contentions on both sides, the deficiencies if any, in putting the same forward before the ITAT, and their merits, the contention ought to be considered and dealt with when disposing off the appeal. Common order passed by the Ld. ITAT are quashed and set aside. ITAT is directed to decide all the appeals afresh, and considering that the ITAT is the last fact finding authority, parties are at liberty to adduce all and any additional materials, grounds, contentions etc., and produce the same before ITAT in support of their contentions in their respective appeals or cross objections. ISSUES: Whether the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on the Assessment Order, contrary to CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019, affects the validity of the Assessment Order.Whether the Assessment Order was issued beyond the period of limitation under the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the non-uploading of the order on the Income Tax Portal before the expiry of limitation.Whether additions on account of alleged bogus purchases can be sustained despite conflicting findings in related group concern cases under identical circumstances.Whether additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act relating to unexplained cash credits on unsecured loans are sustainable when such loans were repaid during the assessment year and subsequent years.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) properly considered and adjudicated all contentions and evidence, including cross objections and written submissions, in its impugned orders. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The absence of a DIN on the Assessment Order was not considered or dealt with by the ITAT, though it 'goes to validity of the assessment order' and is a fundamental issue that must be addressed; the impugned orders are therefore quashed and set aside on this ground.The ITAT incorrectly recorded that the appellant did not bring evidence showing the Assessment Order was received beyond limitation, despite the appellant submitting portal screenshots demonstrating non-uploading of the order before limitation expiry; this issue requires fresh consideration.The ITAT took a conflicting view on bogus purchases compared to its decision in the case of the appellant's group concern under identical circumstances, without adequately addressing this inconsistency; this merits reconsideration.The ITAT reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 68 for some parties and remanded verification for others, but failed to specifically deal with cross objections relating to repayment of unsecured loans; this omission requires rectification.The ITAT's rejection of the appellant's Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) of the Act, which sought consideration of unaddressed arguments, was improper as the ITAT had not dealt with the crucial issues raised. RATIONALE: The legal framework involves compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019, which mandates the presence of a DIN on Assessment Orders to ensure authenticity and validity; non-compliance raises fundamental validity concerns.Limitation under the Income Tax Act governs the time frame within which assessments can be made; non-uploading of Assessment Orders on the official portal before limitation expiry undermines the validity of such assessments.Precedents and consistency in tax adjudication require that similar facts and circumstances, especially within group concerns, be treated uniformly; deviation without reasoned explanation undermines legal certainty.Section 68 additions require that unexplained cash credits be established; repayment of unsecured loans during or after the assessment year is a material fact that must be considered to determine whether additions are justified.The ITAT, as the last fact-finding authority, must consider all relevant evidence, arguments, and cross objections, and failure to do so impairs the fairness and completeness of adjudication.