9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1378 - AT - Income TaxValidity of Revision u/s 263 - order of PCIT on the ground of non-mentioning of DIN - HELD THAT - The Coordinate Bench of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Smt. Sunita Agarwal vs. ITO 2022 (11) TMI 1348 - ITAT KOLKATA taking note of the aforesaid directions/observations made by in the case of Pradeep Goyal vs. UOI 2022 (8) TMI 216 - SUPREME COURT has quashed the order of PCIT on the ground of non-mentioning of DIN in the said order. In view of the discussion made above and in the light of the decisions of the Coordinate Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Tata Medical Centre Trust 2022 (7) TMI 1334 - ITAT KOLKATA and Smt. Sunita Agarwal vs. ITO 2022 (11) TMI 1348 - ITAT KOLKATA the impugned order of ld. CIT(Exemption) is, hereby, quashed. Since, we have quashed the impugned revision order on the aforesaid legal ground.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the revision order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act due to non-mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act Due to Non-Mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN): The primary issue in this case was the validity of the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the non-mentioning of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order. The appellant contested that the order was null and void as it violated CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which mandates the inclusion of a DIN in all communications issued by the Income Tax Department. The appellant's counsel argued that according to the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019, any communication issued by the Income Tax Department without a DIN is invalid and deemed to have never been issued. They cited decisions from the Coordinate Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Tata Medical Centre Trust vs. CIT and Smt. Sunita Agarwal vs. ITO to support their argument. On the other hand, the Department's representative contended that the absence of a DIN does not invalidate the order and that the CBDT Circular is directory and not binding on the Tribunal. The Tribunal referred to the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which mandates that no communication shall be issued by any income-tax authority without a computer-generated DIN, except in certain exceptional circumstances where manual issuance is allowed with proper documentation and approval. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order did not mention a DIN and did not fall under any of the exceptional circumstances outlined in the circular. The Tribunal also referenced the decision in Tata Medical Centre Trust vs. CIT, where it was held that an order issued without a DIN and without the required approval for manual issuance is invalid and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal emphasized that the CBDT circulars are binding on the Income Tax Authorities and cited several judicial precedents, including decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, which support the binding nature of such circulars. Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted a recent judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Goyel vs. UOI, which reinforced the importance of implementing the DIN system to ensure transparency and accountability in tax administration. Based on these considerations, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order passed by the PCIT was invalid due to the non-mentioning of a DIN and thus deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the revision order was quashed. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the revision order passed by the PCIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act due to the non-mentioning of a DIN, in line with the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 and relevant judicial precedents. As the order was deemed invalid, the Tribunal did not address the merits of the case, rendering them academic in nature. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
|
