9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 928 - AT - Income TaxIssuance of assessment order without DIN - violation of CBDT Circular No.19/2019 requiring mandatory DIN - scope of subsequent issue of DIN - HELD THAT - Issuance of assessment order without DIN as it is a matter of record that the impugned assessment order neither contain any DIN and nor any reason for non-mentioning of DIN thereof. Rather, we are in complete agreement with the above contentions of the assessee. In our view, the subsequent communication issued by the Ld. AO generating DIN for the impugned assessment order cannot make good the deficiency in the assessment order issued without generating DIN. In taking this view we are supported by the ratio decidendi of the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in CIT (International Taxation) vs. Brandix Mauritius Holdings 2023 (4) TMI 579 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Thus we are inclined to quash the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under section 153C/143(3) of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order under Section 153C due to non-issuance of DIN. 2. Barred by limitation. 3. Absence of incriminating material. 4. Non-issuance of statutory notices. 5. Additions under Sections 60A and 69C of the Income Tax Act. 6. Opportunity of cross-examination. 7. Acceptance of long-term capital gains. Summary: 1. Validity of the Assessment Order Under Section 153C Due to Non-issuance of DIN: The assessee contended that the assessment order dated 24.12.2021 for AY 2015-16 was invalid as it did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal noted the absence of DIN in the body of the assessment order and found no recorded reasons or approval for issuing the order without DIN. The subsequent issuance of DIN through a separate communication on 03.02.2022 did not comply with the 15 working days requirement for regularization. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT (International Taxation) vs. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd., held that the assessment order was invalid and non-est in the eye of law. 2. Barred by Limitation: The assessee argued that the assessment order was barred by limitation. However, this issue was not specifically adjudicated due to the quashing of the assessment order on the ground of non-issuance of DIN. 3. Absence of Incriminating Material: The assessee claimed that the proceedings under Section 153C were invalid in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. This issue was not specifically addressed due to the quashing of the assessment order on procedural grounds. 4. Non-issuance of Statutory Notices: The assessee contended that the assessment order was passed without the issuance of statutory notices as required by law. This contention was not specifically adjudicated due to the quashing of the assessment order on procedural grounds. 5. Additions Under Sections 60A and 69C of the Income Tax Act: The assessee challenged the additions of Rs. 6,70,000/- under Section 60A and Rs. 10,050/- under Section 69C, claiming arbitrary rejection of explanations and lack of basis for the additions. These issues were not specifically adjudicated due to the quashing of the assessment order on procedural grounds. 6. Opportunity of Cross-examination: The assessee argued that the addition made by the AO was bad in law in the absence of giving an opportunity for cross-examination. This issue was not specifically adjudicated due to the quashing of the assessment order on procedural grounds. 7. Acceptance of Long-term Capital Gains: The assessee contended that the AO, having accepted the income on account of long-term capital gains on the sale of old jewelry, was not justified in taxing the same transaction as unexplained income. This issue was not specifically adjudicated due to the quashing of the assessment order on procedural grounds. Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the assessment order dated 24.12.2021 was quashed due to non-compliance with the mandatory DIN requirement as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal did not adjudicate the appeal on merits due to the procedural invalidity of the assessment order.
|
