9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 1200 - AT - Income TaxValidity of AO s order with no DIN number mentioned - Communications emanating from the revenue - HELD THAT - A perusal of the AO s order shows that it is clear in the body of AO s order, no DIN number is mentioned nor there is any reason of not mentioning the DIN number in order of the AO. In such a situation, the AO order will lose its validity. Subsequent separate communication of DIN is a superfluous exercise. As regards, reference to the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court by the ld. DR for the Revenue, we find that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. ( 1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT has held that if two views are possible one in favour of the assessee is to be adopted. In this regard, we are referring to the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. 2023 (4) TMI 579 - DELHI HIGH COURT as held that no communication shall be issued by any income tax authority relating to assessment, appeals, orders, statutory or otherwise, exemptions, enquiry, investigation, verification of information, penalty, prosecution, rectification, approval etcetera, to the assessee or any other person, on or after 01.10.2019 unless it is allotted a computer-generated DIN. Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN). 2. Compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Summary: Validity of the Assessment Order Due to Absence of DIN: The primary issue raised by the assessee was the validity of the assessment orders dated 31.12.2019, passed under Section 143(3)/153C, due to the absence of a DIN. The assessee argued that the orders were void ab initio because they did not comply with the mandatory requirement of quoting a DIN as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The counsel for the assessee cited several judgments, including CIT vs. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd., to support this claim. The Revenue's representative contended that the absence of a DIN was an administrative issue and did not invalidate the proceedings. He argued that non-DIN communications could be validated through prescribed procedures and exceptions, and that the ITAT did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate administrative issues. Compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019: The Tribunal examined the contents of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which mandates that all communications, including assessment orders, must have a DIN unless issued under exceptional circumstances with prior written approval. The circular aims to create an audit trail and ensure transparency. Paragraph 4 of the circular specifies that any communication not conforming to these requirements shall be treated as invalid and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal found that the AO's order lacked a DIN and did not mention any reasons for its absence or any approval from higher authorities. Therefore, the order was not in compliance with the circular. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd., which held that any communication without a DIN is non-est in law. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment orders were invalid due to the absence of a DIN and quashed the impugned AO orders. Consequently, the other grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic and did not require adjudication. Conclusion: The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were invalid due to non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, specifically the absence of a DIN.
|
