2023 (8) TMI 378 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment u/s 153A - Document Identification Number (DIN) not quoted - Generation of DIN is condition precedent for making an assessment manually or otherwise on the ITBA and then before it is uploaded on ITBA - HELD THAT - The Bench is of considered view that forwarding of the intimation of generation of the DIN in ITBA is only a subsequent action and that is not part of assessment order. The manner in which the word communication is defined shows every notice, order, summons, letter and any correspondence from Tax authorities should have a DIN quoted and it is for this reason that the Intimation issued about the DIN of assessment order itself has a DIN quoted on it. In the case in hand the facts coming from the assessment order when considered establish that DIN was not generated prior to uploading the document in ITBA. It is also established that the DIN was not quoted before it was physically signed by the AO. The generation of DIN subsequently and generation of intimation to be sent to assessee are of no consequence for the purpose of assessment and raising the demand. Decided in favour of assessee. Extension of Period of limitation - The orders as uploaded on the ITBA were incomplete and that would only come to aid of assessee for extending the period of the limitation for filing the appeal but order does not become void on that ground and there is no case of time barred assessment. So issue number two is decided against the assessee. To make the order complete and effective, it should be issued, so as to be beyond the control of the authority concerned, for any possible change or modification therein. That is best achieved with the introduction of DIN but once the order is complete in all respects and within the prescribed period, the actual service of the order may be beyond that period and that will only give rise to question of start of limitation period for challenging it but that does not invalidate the order itself. Thus the orders as uploaded on the ITBA were incomplete and that would only come to aid of assessee for extending the period of the limitation for filing the appeal but order does not become void on that ground and there is no case of time barred assessment. So issue number two is decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the assessment orders due to absence of Document Identification Number (DIN).
2. Completeness and timing of assessment orders uploaded on ITBA portal.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of the assessment orders due to absence of Document Identification Number (DIN):
The Tribunal examined whether the assessment orders were invalid due to the absence of DIN. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which mandates that all communications, including assessment orders, must have a DIN unless issued under exceptional circumstances with prior approval. The Tribunal found that the assessment orders did not mention any reasons for manual issuance or any approval from the Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income Tax. The orders were signed without a DIN, which was generated only after uploading the orders on ITBA. The Tribunal concluded that the orders were non-est as they did not comply with the mandatory requirement of quoting a DIN before signing. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd., which held that orders without DIN are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal decided this issue in favor of the assessee, declaring the assessment orders non-est.

Issue 2: Completeness and timing of assessment orders uploaded on ITBA portal:
The Tribunal also examined whether the assessment orders were incomplete when uploaded on ITBA and whether they were passed after the limitation period. The Tribunal noted that the orders uploaded on ITBA were incomplete, with only 4 or 9 pages, while the complete orders were over 270 pages. However, the Tribunal held that the service of incomplete orders on ITBA does not invalidate the orders themselves. The Tribunal stated that the actual service of the orders may be beyond the prescribed period, but this only affects the start of the limitation period for filing an appeal, not the validity of the orders. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer, which held that an order must be communicated to the affected party to be complete and effective. The Tribunal decided this issue against the assessee, holding that the orders were not void on the ground of incomplete service on ITBA.

Conclusion:
Since the Tribunal decided the first issue in favor of the assessee, declaring the assessment orders non-est, it quashed the impugned demand based on these orders. The Tribunal did not address the other grounds on merits, as they became superfluous. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned demand was quashed.