2023 (3) TMI 1054 - HC - Income Tax

Delay uploading the assessment order or generating the DIN - Assessment barred by the limitation period provided under Section 153(3) - specific case of the petitioner is that during the pendency of the writ petition the order of assessment was uploaded on the web portal of the petitioner assessee which was not communicated through e mail address of the assessee - mandation to quote DIN number with regard to every communication made by the Revenue to the assessee - HELD THAT - In the case at hand the order sheet at Annexure B to the supplementary affidavit of the revenue dated 07.12.2022 shows that the assessment order was made/generated on 31.03.2022 and the intimation letter was issued on 03.04.2022. Therefore the contention of the petitioner that the said assessment order dated 31.03.2022 which was uploaded on the web portal on 01.04.2022 and communicated to the petitioner on 03.04.2022 is barred by limitation is misconceived and not sustainable in law inasmuch as section 153 (3) controls only making of order. There is no restriction or limitation period prescribed under Section 153 (3) for issue of order uploading of order on web portal or communication of order In the present case the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 was upload ed on web portal on 01.04.2022 which is just the next day after 31.03.2022 and even the DIN was generated on 01.04.2022. Accordingly the delay if any in uploading or DIN was just of one day. The legislature itself has given stricter time line for Section 153 (1) and Section 153 (2) and has give n a liberal time line for Section 153 (3). Thus it may not be correct to apply the time line provided under Section 153 (3) strictly or as mandatory as compared to the time line provided under Section 153 (1) and Section 153 (2). Both Section 153 (1) and Section 153 (2) provide for the consequence that after the expiry of time line no assessment order shall be passed . However Section 153 (3) does not provide for any such consequence. Accordingly in the present case the delay if any of just one day in uploading the assessment order or generating the DIN cannot make the assessment order unsustainable in law. Petitioner has also contended that the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 was uploaded on the next day i.e. 01.04.2022 but the same was required in law to be uploaded on the same date and not later. However the Petitioner has not shown any provision of law which provides that an assessment order has to be uploaded on the web portal on the same d ay when it is made and the assessment order will become invalid if the same is uploaded on the next day. In the absence of such legal provision it cannot be held that the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 which was uploaded on 01.04.2022 is invalid in law. Different expression used by the legislature at different places has certainly a different objective. Making of the order and communication of the order are two different things. Even the circular stipulates communication of the order and not making of the order as it says every communication relating to assessment appeal order etc. shall have a DIN on the body of the order . Petitioner has contended that impugned order is antedated. It is a purely factual issue also disputed by the revenue. As such the petitioner has a statutory alternate remedy to challenge the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) where he may raise such plea . The instant writ application is dismissed Petitioner has failed to satisfy any of grounds to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court by passing the statutory alternative remedy.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN).
2. Compliance with Section 282 of the Income Tax Act and Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules.
3. Timeliness of the assessment order under Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Allegations of antedating the assessment order.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Order Due to Absence of DIN:
The petitioner argued that the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 was void ab initio because it lacked a DIN, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. The circular requires every communication related to assessment to bear a computer-generated DIN unless exceptional circumstances are recorded in writing with prior approval from the Chief Commissioner/Director General. The petitioner cited similar cases where the absence of a DIN rendered the orders invalid. The court, however, found that the assessment order was uploaded on the web portal on 01.04.2022, and the DIN was generated on the same day, indicating only a one-day delay. The court concluded that this minor delay did not invalidate the assessment order, as the primary requirement under Section 153(3) was the making of the order within the prescribed period, not its communication or uploading.

2. Compliance with Section 282 of the Income Tax Act and Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules:
The petitioner contended that the order's uploading on the web portal conflicted with Section 282 of the Income Tax Act and Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, which govern the service of orders. The court noted that the assessment order was uploaded on 01.04.2022 and communicated on 03.04.2022. The court held that the requirement under Section 153(3) was the making of the order by the given date, not its communication. Therefore, the court found no conflict with Section 282 and Rule 127, as the order was made within the limitation period.

3. Timeliness of the Assessment Order Under Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act:
The petitioner argued that the assessment order was barred by limitation as it was communicated after 31.03.2022. The court analyzed Section 153(3), which provides a timeline for making the assessment order but does not specify a timeline for its communication or uploading. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in CIT v. Mohd. Meeran Shahul Hameed, which distinguished between making, issuing, and receiving orders. The court concluded that the assessment order was made on 31.03.2022, within the prescribed period, and the subsequent communication delay did not render it invalid.

4. Allegations of Antedating the Assessment Order:
The petitioner alleged that the assessment order was antedated, as it was uploaded on 01.04.2022 but purportedly made on 31.03.2022. The court found this to be a factual issue disputed by the revenue and suggested that the petitioner could raise this plea before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The court emphasized that it had not commented on the merits of the case and dismissed the writ application, directing the petitioner to avail the statutory alternate remedy.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ application, holding that the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 was made within the limitation period prescribed under Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act. The court found that the minor delay in uploading and generating the DIN did not invalidate the order. The petitioner was advised to challenge the order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and raise any factual issues there.

← Previous Next →