Case Law Details
Pandharinath Mahadeo Ovhal Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Introduction: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Pune recently issued a significant decision in the case of Pandharinath Mahadeo Ovhal vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO). This case centered around an assessment order issued under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The crux of the matter was the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on the assessment order, which led to its invalidation. This article provides an overview of the case, a detailed analysis of the ITAT’s decision, and its implications.
Detailed Analysis
1. Background: The case involves an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2012-13. The initial assessment order was passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act on November 25, 2019. The assessee raised several grounds of appeal, including objections to an ex-parte order, adoption of property valuation under Section 50C, treatment of gross receipts as capital gain, and other aspects.
2. The Issue of DIN: The crucial point of contention revolved around the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on the assessment order. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had issued Circular No. 19/2019, which mandated that no communication related to assessment, appeals, orders, exemptions, and more could be issued without a computer-generated DIN. Further, the circular specified that any communication without a DIN would be treated as invalid and deemed never to have been issued.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
