TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1409
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [hereinafter referred to as 'ITAT']. 3. ITAT by the impugned orders allowed the appeals, holding that the direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel [hereinafter referred to as 'DRP'] under Section 144C (5) of the Act did not contain a Document Identification Number [hereinafter referred to as 'DIN'] as mandated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes [hereinafter referred to as 'CBDT'] by its Circular No.19/2019 [F.No.225/95/2019-ITA II] dated 14.08.2019 [hereinafter referred to as 'Circular']; that the subsequent communication intimating the DIN for DRP proceedings did not satisfy the conditions prescribed in paragraph No.3 of the circular; and that therefore, those orders are invalid in law and as a sequitur, the assessment orders which were impugned before ITAT are liable to be quashed. Challenging the common order passed by ITAT, in respect of the three assessment years, the instant appeals have been filed. The Tax Case Appeal No.80 of 2025 pertains to Assessment Year 2015-2016; the Tax Case Appeal No.81 of 2025 pertains to Assessment Year 2016-2017; and the Tax Case Appeal No.82 of 2025 pertains to Assessment Year 2013-2014. 4. Appellant in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and therefore, the impugned assessment orders before ITAT, which contains a DIN, ought not to have been quashed. 6. Mr. Balaji, learned counsel for respondent/assessee submitted that the assessment orders were pursuant to the directions of DRP; that an invalid document i.e., the directions of the DRP, would render the consequential acts, including the assessment orders, invalid; that appellant had made a false statement of having generated a DIN for proceedings of DRP as ITBA/DRP/5/91/2022-23/1048143460(1) on 19.12.2022; that the said DIN was generated for a communication called the intimation letter dated 21.12.2022 purportedly to electronically communicate the DIN for the DRP proceedings dated 19.12.2022 and therefore, could not have been generated on 19.12.2022 and that even according to appellant, the DIN for the DRP proceedings is ITBA/DRP/M/144C(5)/2022-23/10481433274(1) . 7. Learned counsel submitted that this DIN, which ends with 460(1), was generated only on 21.12.2022 and hence could not have been in existence on 19.12.2022 and therefore, appellant had interpolated the number subsequently and not on the date on which the proceedings concluded, i.e., on 19.12.2022. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lotting/ quoting the DIN and issuance of communication electronically; or (ii) when communication regarding enquiry, verification etc. is required to be issued by an income-tax authority, who is outside the office, for discharging his official duties; or (iii) when due to delay in PAN migration. PAN is lying with non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer; or (iv) when PAN of assessee is not available and where a proceeding under the Act (other than verification under section 131 or section 133 of the Act) is sought to be initiated; or (v) when the functionality to issue communication is not available in the system, the communication may be issued manually but only after recording reasons in writing in the file and with prior written approval of the Chief Commissioner/ Director General of income-tax. In cases where manual communication is required to be issued due to delay in PAN migration, the proposal seeking approval for issuance of manual communication shall include the reason for delay in PAN migration. The communication issued under aforesaid circumstances shall state the fact that the communication is issued manually without a DIN and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner / Director General of Income Tax. Paragraph No.3 also states that if DIN is not generated and quoted in the body of the communication, then reasons for not generating and quoting DIN should be mentioned in a specific format set out in paragraph No.3 of the circular, which is extracted supra. 12. From the third question of law raised by appellant, it could be seen that their stand is that even assuming that the proceedings of DRP did not contain a valid DIN, the subsequent assessment orders which were impugned had a valid DIN and therefore ITAT erred in setting aside the assessment orders. It is their case that the proceedings of the DRP is not an order of an income tax authority and therefore, the circular requiring the generation of DIN would not be applicable to DRP proceedings. This submission cannot hold water. 13. Firstly, on facts, it is the case of appellant that there was a DIN generated and it was written in hand in the proceedings of DRP and subsequently, communicated to assessee two days later. Therefore, appellant concedes that DIN has to be generated for DRP proceedings. 14. Secondly, the issue is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of Bombay High....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions : A.Y. 2011-2012 - WP No.2593 of 2021 A.Y. 2012-2013 - WP No.2598 of 2021 A.Y. 2013-2014 - WP No.2847 of 2021 A.Y. 2014-2015 - WP No.2597 of 2021 A.Y. 2015-2016 - WP No.2594 of 2021 A.Y. 2016-2017 - WP No.2588 of 2021 A.Y. 2017-2018 - WP No.2595 of 2021 A.Y. 2018-2019 - WP No.2625 of 2021 A.Y. 2019-2020 - WP No.2696 of 2021" 15. Thus, even a satisfaction note according to the Division Bench would fall within the scope of paragraph No.2 of the circular and therefore, in our view, there cannot be any doubt that the directions of the DRP which consists of a collegium of three Income Tax Commissioners also would fall within the scope of paragraph No.2 of the circular. 16. The other argument made by learned counsel for appellant is that, on facts, a DIN was in fact generated on 19.12.2022 and the same was written in hand, which was also communicated, as stated earlier, pursuant to an intimation letter dated 21.12.2022. First of all, if the DIN had been generated on the same day and written by hand, there been no necessity for the subsequent communication. Be that as it may. 17. The DIN written....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accordingly. 21. It is alleged that ITAT chose to hold that the orders are invalid, which had led to huge revenue loss to the department. It is, however, the responsibility of the Assessing Officer to ensure that he strictly complies with the Circulars issued by his Department and instead of blaming the ITAT, he should personally take the responsibility of causing revenue loss to the department. 22. We note another disturbing feature in these cases. According to the communication dated 21.12.2022, the DIN for the directions under Section 144C (5) of the Act, ends with the following number 1048133274(1), whereas, the DIN quoted in the DRP is the number ending with 1048143460(1). In fact, the latter number is the DIN generated in the communication dated 21.12.2022. It is not known as to how a DIN generated on 21.12.2022, could find a place in the proceedings of DRP dated 19.12.2022. Learned counsel for appellant was unable to give any satisfactory explanation. Therefore, we are of the view that the DIN has been interpolated subsequently in the proceedings of the DRP and would not have been generated in real time as claimed by appellant. The false claim by appellant, therefore, ....