Case Law Details
Sidda Venkata Surya Prakasa Rao Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
ITAT Hyderabad held that non-generation/ non-quoting of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the order will render the order invalid and will be treated as never to have been issued.
Facts- The assessee mainly contested that an order passed under section 263 of the Act should be treated as ‘nonest’ in the eye of law for violation of the procedure prescribed by the CBDT vide Circular No. 19/2019, dated 14/08/2019 and submitted that to prevent the instances of not maintaining a proper audit trail of communication like notice, order, summons, letter and any correspondence issued, it is mandated to maintain proper audit trail of all communication to the assessee without quoting a computer generated DIN on or after 01/10/2019.
Conclusion- In the case of CIT vs. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble Delhi High Court addressed this issue where the Revenue pleaded that is only a mistake, and held that to such case also paragraph 4 of the 2019 circular would apply. As referred to by us, paragraph 4 of the circular clearly reads that any communication which is not in conformity with paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued. It is, therefore, clear that any reason what-so-ever other than the exceptions mentioned in paragraph 3 would save the communication issued without DIN.
In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that for want of generation/quoting the DIN in the order dated 23/03/2020, such an order shall be treated to have never been issued and, therefore, shall not take any affect. In view of this finding, we deem it not necessary to delve deeper into the merits of the case.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
