9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 022 passed under section 144C(5) of the Act, thus such directions are in contravention to the CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 and hence liable to be quashed/ annulled as invalid. 4.2. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated 29 July 2022 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act pursuant to invalid and non-est directions passed by Hon'ble DRP is bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. " 3. Referring to the additional ground of appeal the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the additional ground is purely legal ground and going to the validity of the order passed by the DRP as it was passed without quoting the DIN in the directions of the DRP disregarding the CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 dated 14.08.2019. Therefore, it is prayed that the additional ground be admitted for adjudication. 4. On hearing both the parties we admit the additional ground as it is purely legal ground and does not involve any verification of facts. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the DRP direction submitted that the direction dated 7.06.2022 mentioned no DIN number. The ld. Counsel further subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdictional High Court in Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) held as under:- "12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The present appeal is preferred under Section 260A of the Act. The Court's mandate, thus, is to consider whether or not a substantial question of law arises for consideration. 12.1 As noted above, the impugned order has not been passed on merits. 13. The Tribunal has applied the plain provisions of the 2019 Circular, based on which, it has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent/assessee. 14. The broad contours of the 2019 Circular have been adverted to by us hereinabove. 14.1 Insofar as the instant case is concerned, admittedly, the draft assessment order was passed on 30.12.2018. 15. The respondent/assessee had filed its objections qua the same, which were disposed of by the Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] via order dated 20.09.2019. 16. The final assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 15.10.2019, under Section 147/144(C)(13)/143(3) of the Act. Concededly, the final assessment order does not bear a DIN. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant/revenue took steps to demonstrate bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces in not quoting the DIN in the body of the order such communication/order was held to be invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued. While holding so the Tribunal observed as under:- "6. In the course of hearing, it was a common point between the parties that the facts and circumstances with respect to the maintainability and merits of the afore-stated Additional Ground is similar to that considered by us in the case of Smt. Sharda Devi Bajaj & Anr. in ITA No. 3006/Del/2022 (AY 2015- 16) & Ors. passed in order dated 15.11.2023; and, therefore the said Ground is liable to be decided accordingly, as the matter is no longer res integra. 7. In order to impart completeness, we may hereinafter, refer to the relevant discussion in the case of Smt. Sharda Devi Bajaj & Anr. (Supra), which reads as under:- "7. In so far as the introduction of additional ground based on CBDT Circular dated 14.8.2019 is concerned, we find that it is a question of law which is based on the material which is already on record and, therefore, the introduction of the additional ground deserves to be allowed. A useful reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in PCIT vs. M/s Tata Medical Centre Trust in ITAT/202/2023 Judgement dated 26.9.2023. 12. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has inter alia held that subsequent generation of the DIN will not be sufficient as the requirement of the CBDT Circular, is quoting of the DIN, in the body of such communication and / or order. 13. On behalf of the Revenue reliance is placed on the communication dated 17.9.2019 which pertains to the roll out of facility for System generated Document (i.e. Intimation Letter) containing Document Identification number (DIN) for documents issued outside the system but uploaded manually in Income Tax Business Application (ITBA). 14. We are unable to see as to how the said communication can come to the aid of the Revenue. All that the communication states is about the provision of facility for generation of Intimation Letter containing Document Identification Number / Document Number (DIN/DN) for documents issued outside ITBA system but uploaded manually in Income Tax Business Application (ITBA). 15. From para 4 of the communication, it is clear that it pertains to the functionality to capture and uphold the letters, notices and orders issued manually and se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is as per para-3 of the circular. Further the AO had generated the DIN on 21.01.2020, which is again within 15 working days (there fall 3 weekends = 6 holidays within this period) as per the para 5 of the above circular. Thus the AO had followed the circular 19/2019 procedurally and there is no default on this account. Further the AO had posted the order through ordinary speed post on 31.12.2019 as per the certificate of the Asstt. Director (Admin) GPO, New Delhi dated 31.12.2019, which mentions that 23 articles as per annexure have been dispatched by the AO on 31.12.2019 and at Sr. No. 14 of the Annexure, name/address of the appellant is appearing. Further the AO had dispatched the assessment order vide speed post no. ED989140641IN also. The approval had been obtained from the CCIT(C), Delhi to pass this order manually itself shows that the assessment order was passed by the AO on 31.12.2019 and it was dispatched on 31.12.2019 itself through ordinary post and later through speed post also. The DIN had been generated within 15 working days and 8 communicated to the appellant. In these facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the AO had passed the assessment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... containing the particulars about the date of obtaining written approval of the CCIT, etc. 10. Ostensibly, the assessment order (i.e. the communication in question) is conspicuous by its absence of the statement required to be made as per Paragraph 3 of the Circular (supra) as the same is issued manually. Under these circumstances, paragraph 4 of the Circular, which reads as under: - "4. Any communication which is not in conformity with Para-2 and Para-3 above, shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued." is quite lucid and eloquent to the effect that any communication which is not in conformity with Para 2 and Para 3 of 10 the Circular (supra) shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued. Ostensibly, the assessment order in question does not comply with the requirements of Para-3 of the Circular (supra) and thus, we find no reason to uphold the decision of the CIT(A) on this aspect. We may note here that this facet of the controversy has been specifically dealt with by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Commercial Enterprise vs. ACIT in WP Nos. 2595 of 2021 & Ors. vide Judgement dated 04.09.2023, wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
