9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1324 - HC - Income TaxValidity of Revision order u/s 263 - not mentioning any DIN - whether the DIN was mentioned in the order passed under Section 263? - Tribunal upon examining the facts held that the order does not incorporate the DIN number and it is in violation of the Circular No. 19 of 2019, dated 14th August, 2019 - HELD THAT - Tribunal on examination of the facts held that the requirement as mentioned in the Circular No. 19 of 2019 quoting of the Document Identification Number, has not been followed and therefore allowed the assessee s appeal. The revenue filed miscellaneous application seeking for rectification of the said order. Once again the Tribunal has undertaken a factual exercise and in fact, raised a specific query to the revenue to point out how a DIN intimation letter along with the manual order as explained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) in his reply fulfils the categorical requirement mandated by the CBDT Circular, more particularly, in paragraph 2 of the said Circular, that the body of the communication, the order under Section 263 of the Act, must contain the fact and that the communication issued referred to the DIN without justifying as to how the non compliance of the CBDT Circular dated 14th August, 2019, which was noted by the Tribunal when it passed the main order. The Tribunal notes that this specific query was unable to be answered by the revenue and therefore the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the order passed under Section 263 does not satisfy the requirement mandated by the CBDT Circular. Revenue appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
The appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2016-17. Issue a): The Tribunal quashed the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act on the ground of not mentioning the Document Identification Number (DIN) despite it being duly generated and communicated to the assessee. The Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 issued by the CBDT was cited as the basis for this decision. Issue b): The Tribunal was questioned for not appreciating the fact that the intimation letter clearly mentioned the Document Identification Number, which was considered an integral part of the order passed under Section 263. The appellant argued that the intimation letter should be considered part of the substantive order. Issue c): The Tribunal was criticized for not acknowledging that the generation and communication of the DIN along with the order under Section 263 to the assessee were in compliance with Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 issued by the CBDT. Issue d): The Tribunal was accused of dismissing the miscellaneous application without considering the generation of the DIN Number as a ground for rectification of a mistake apparent from the record as per section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The High Court heard arguments from both parties. The main issue was whether the DIN was mentioned in the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the order did not include the DIN number, violating Circular No. 19 of 2019. The Circular states that any communication not conforming to its requirements shall be treated as invalid. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, as the DIN was not included in the order. The appellant argued that the intimation letter should be considered part of the substantive order. However, the letter did not explain why the DIN was omitted from the substantive order, as required by the Circular. The revenue filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of the order. The Tribunal asked the revenue to justify how the DIN intimation letter, along with the manual order, fulfilled the requirements of the CBDT Circular. The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to answer this query, leading to the conclusion that the order did not meet the Circular's requirements. Ultimately, the Court found no substantial question of law for consideration and dismissed the appeal. The stay application was also dismissed.
|
