2023 (11) TMI 396 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of order of the DRP without mentioning the DIN number - simultaneous DIN number was generated through separate communication - HELD THAT - A perusal of the DRP order shows that it is clear in the body of DRP order, no DIN number is mentioned nor there is any reason of not mentioning the DIN number in order of the DRP. Is such a situation, the DRP order will lose its validity. Subsequent separate communication of DIN is a superfluous exercise. As relying on Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. 2023 (4) TMI 579 - DELHI HIGH COURT and in terms of paragraph 4 of the circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019, we hold that the impugned DRP order is invalid and shall be deemed to have never been passed. Accordingly, we quash the impugned DRP/AO order. Further, the issue that a simultaneous DIN number was generated and communicated have been considered by Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Abhimanyu Chaturvedi 2023 (8) TMI 378 - ITAT DELHI which says 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. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of DRP order due to absence of a valid computer-generated DIN.
2. Consequential validity of the final assessment order.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of DRP Order Due to Absence of a Valid Computer-Generated DIN
The assessee raised additional grounds questioning the validity of the DRP order dated 15/12/2022 and 16/12/2022, arguing that the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) contravened CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Circular mandates that no communication shall be issued without a computer-generated DIN unless specific exceptions apply, and any communication issued without a DIN shall be treated as invalid. The Tribunal noted that the DRP order did not mention a DIN nor provided reasons for its absence, rendering the order void ab initio. The Tribunal referenced the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd., which confirmed that communications without a DIN are non-est in law.

Issue 2: Consequential Validity of the Final Assessment Order
Given the invalidity of the DRP order, the final assessment order dated 20/01/2023, passed under section 147 read with section 144C(13) of the Act, was also deemed null and void. The Tribunal emphasized that subsequent communication of a DIN is superfluous if the DIN is not mentioned in the body of the original communication. The Tribunal also referred to the case of Abhimanyu Chaturvedi vs DCIT, reiterating that a DIN must be quoted on the order before it is signed to be valid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the DRP and AO orders due to the absence of a valid DIN, rendering the remaining grounds academic. All appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.

Order Pronounced:
The judgment was delivered on 06th November 2023.