Case Law Details
Toyoda Micromatic Machinery India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
In a recent appeal, Toyoda Micromatic Machinery India Private Limited challenged the validity of a Transfer Pricing Order by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the order by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The primary contention was the absence of the Document Identification Number (DIN) on these orders. This article delves into the case and discusses the significance of DIN on tax communications.
Detailed Analysis: Toyoda Micromatic Machinery India Private Limited lodged an appeal against an order issued by the Assessing Officer/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 25.02.2022. The order was made under sections 143(3)/144C(13) read with 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18.
The crux of the matter centered around the absence of DIN on the Transfer Pricing Order issued by the TPO and the order by the DRP. The appellant contended that this absence rendered the orders void-ab-initio. It was highlighted that Circular No.19/2019, dated 14 August 2019, mandates the inclusion of DIN in all tax communications.
The issue of whether the simultaneous issuance of a DIN and its communication are critical was addressed in the case of Abhimanyu Chaturvedi vs. DCIT. In this case, the Circular No. 19/2019 was analyzed, which defines “communication” to encompass various forms of correspondence, including notices and orders.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
