2023 (11) TMI 997

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1961 for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21. 2. The assessee in these appeals challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer and the directions of the DRP on the taxability of management fee received and levy of sur-charge and cess on FTS for the assessment year 2019-20 and for the assessment year 2020-21, assessee challenged taxability of management fee received. In these two assessment years, the assessee also filed additional grounds challenging the validity of the orders passed by the learned DRP on the ground that the orders passed by the DRP did not contain the mandatory documentation identification numbers (DIN) on the body of the directions in contravention of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. The additional grounds i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) read with section 144C(13) of the Act passed by the Ld. A.O, pursuant to the invalid directions passed by the Ld. DRP under Section 144C(5) of the Act, is illegal, thus, making the final assessment order bad in law, null and void and thus, liable to be quashed. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that since these additional grounds are purely legal grounds and no verification of fresh facts are required, the same may be admitted and disposed of on merits. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT - 229 ITR 383. 4. On hearing both the parties and perusing the additional grounds, we are of the view that the additional grounds raised are purely legal grounds and follow....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the manual order. 7. Heard rival contentions. On perusal of the directions of the DRP passed under Section 144C(5) for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020- 21, we notice that these directions were passed without mentioning the DIN in the body of the directions. However, we find that separate communications dated 22.06.2022 and 15.11.2022 were issued intimating that orders passed under Section 144C(5) dated 16.06.2022 and 20.11.2022 for the assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 contain DIN numbers, meaning thereby, the DIN was generated subsequent to passing of the orders/directions of the DRP. 8. The issue as to whether the orders/intimation passed without quoting the DIN numbers on the body of the order has been considered by the Hon'bl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or of Income Tax. Para 4 of the Circular provides that any communication which is not in conformity with the requirement of Para 2 and Para 3 shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued. 10. In the present case, it is not in dispute and otherwise, it is a matter of record that the order of the Assessing Officer does not bear any DIN. 11. It is not necessary to multiply authorities on the point. However, to the similar effect is the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ashok Commercial Enterprise vs. ACIT in WP Nos. 2595 of 2021 & Ors. Judgement dated 04.09.2023 and the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in PCIT vs. M/s Tata Medical Centre Trust in ITAT/202/2023 Judgement dated 26.9.2023. 12. The Hon'ble B....