9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 997 - AT - Income TaxValidity of the orders passed by DRP without quoting DIN - HELD THAT - After analyzing the clauses of the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019, as decided in Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. 2023 (4) TMI 579 - DELHI HIGH COURT that the orders/communications issued without quoting the DIN on the body of the order are not valid orders. Similar issue has been considered by the Tribunal recently in the case of Smt. Sharda Devi Bajaj Ors. 2023 (11) TMI 645 - ITAT DELHI Thus directions/orders passed by the DRP for the assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 under Section 144C(5) are bad in law. Consequently, the final assessment orders passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) pursuant to such directions/orders of the DRP are also bad in law - Assessee appeal allowed.
Issues:
The judgment involves challenges to final assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21. The issues raised include taxability of management fee received, levy of surcharge and cess on FTS, and the validity of orders passed by the DRP without mentioning the mandatory Documentation Identification Number (DIN) on the body of the directions. Challenge to DRP's Directions: The appellant challenged the validity of the DRP's directions under Section 144C(5) for both assessment years, contending that the orders lacked the mandatory DIN in contravention of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The additional grounds raised were purely legal and were admitted based on the decision of the Supreme Court in NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT. The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds as they were legal in nature. Validity of DRP's Orders: The appellant argued that the DRP's orders were invalid as they did not mention the DIN on the directions, citing the decision in Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. vs. DCIT. The DRP, however, claimed that separate DINs were generated for uploading the manual order on the system and for communicating the DIN of the manual order. The Tribunal noted that while the directions lacked DIN, subsequent communications mentioned DIN numbers generated after passing the orders. Legal Validity of Orders: The Tribunal considered the issue of orders lacking DIN numbers, citing the decision in Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. vs. DCIT and subsequent Tribunal decisions. The CBDT Circular mandated the quoting of DIN in all communications, and any communication not conforming to this requirement would be treated as invalid. The Tribunal found that the orders of the Assessing Officer did not bear any DIN, aligning with decisions of other High Courts on similar matters. Decision and Conclusion: Relying on previous decisions and the CBDT Circular, the Tribunal held that the DRP's directions/orders without DIN were invalid. Consequently, the final assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer based on these directions were also deemed bad in law and were quashed for both assessment years. As a result, the appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the additions made in the assessment orders due to the jurisdictional issue.
|
