Abhimanyu Chaturvedi Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that for the purpose of Section 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, the assessment can be said to be ‘made’ only when the DIN is quoted on the order before it is signed. Order passed u/s 153A without first generating the DIN is invalid and bad-in-law.
Facts- The appellants are family members whose LTCG arising on the sale of certain shares which were purchased simultaneously by each assessee in the same company and have been added back to the income of each assessee vide separate assessment orders passed under Section 153A read with Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act and which stands confirmed by Ld CIT(A).
The appellants were issued a notice u/s. 153 A of the Act and the appellants filed their return of income wherein the same income which was initially offered to tax was declared in the returns.
It is claimed that no incriminating material whatsoever was found at the premises of the Assessees. It is further claimed that the Assessment proceedings against the Assessees, as per the provisions of Section 153A of the Act were to become time barred on 30.09.2021. However, as the Assessees did not receive the assessment order till 30.9.2021, so the assessee sought a copy of the order vide letter dated 13.10.2021. It is submitted that they were supplied with a copy of the Assessment Order which was dated 09.08.202. It was running into 250 pages and did not bear any DIN number and the said orders were received by the assessees only 16.10.2021.
Conclusion- Held that when a document is prepared outside the ITBA system and uploaded manually, a DIN is required to be generated prior to uploading the document in ITBA. The instructions make it imperative that the DIN so generated has to be used for reference and quoting a document number in a physical copy. Thus, for the purpose of Section 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, the assessment can be said to be ‘made’ only when the DIN is quoted on the order before it is signed. If without first generating the DIN and before it is quoted on the order, the order is signed, the order is non-est.
In the case in hand the facts coming from the assessment order when considered establish that DIN was not generated prior to uploading the document in ITBA. It is also established that the DIN was not quoted before it was physically signed by the Ld. AO. The generation of DIN subsequently and generation of intimation to be sent to assessee are of no consequence for the purpose of assessment and raising the demand.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 10.08.2022 of CIT(A), Kanpur-4 (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) arising out of an appeal before it against the order dated 09.08.2021 passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the JCIT (OSD) Central Circle-1, Noida (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO).
2. Heard and perused the record.
3. The grounds raised in these appeals are common, except for the amounts involved and for convenience the grounds in the case of Abhimanyu Chaturvedi are reproduced below ;
1. That the Impugned Order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law and fact.
2. That the Impugned Order has incorrectly upheld the Assessment Order dated 09.08.2021 which is void ab initio.
3. That the Impugned Order has failed to appreciate the fact that the Assessment Order dated 09.08.2021 is bad in law and fact.
4. That the Assessment Proceedings under Section 153A and 153D of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’) have been incorrectly initiated against the Appellant and the same are without any basis in law and fact.
5. That the Impugned Assessment proceedings are in violation of principles of natural justice and the Ld. AO has acted in a premeditated manner.
6. That the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that all additions made in the case of the Appellant are without any basis as the statement/s on basis which such additions were made were withdrawn.
7. That the addition of Rs. 2,32,86,521 under Section 69A of the Act has been erroneously upheld by the Ld. CIT (A).
8. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erroneously upheld the addition of Rs. 6,71,600/- (i.e. 3 percent of Rs. 2,23,86,521/-) u/s. 69C of the Act.
9. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charging interest u/s 234A of the Act, which is bad in law, the same may kindly be deleted.
10. Without prejudice to all above points, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) of IT Act, 1961, which is bad in law, the same may kindly be deleted.
11. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.
4. The relevant facts as picked up from the matter on record and submissions are that the appellants are family members whose LTCG arising on sale of certain shares which were purchased simultaneously by each assessee in the same company and have been added back to the income of the each assessees vide separate assessment orders passed under Section 153A read with Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (‘the Act’) and which stands confirmed by Ld CIT(A).
4.1 The details of the Assessees/appellants as provided in the submission are hereunder:
