Innio Jenbacher GmbH & Co. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Conclusion: The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) order passed without Document Identification Number (DIN) number should be treated as invalid and was contrary to the CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14th August 2019 as it was clear in the body of DRP order, no DIN number was mentioned nor there was any reason of not mentioning the DIN number in order of the DRP.
Held: In the instant case, assessee submitted that there was no DIN mentioned in the DRP order which was contrary to the CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14th August 2019. Hence, he submitted that the said DRP order was void ab initio. He further submitted that in such a situation, jurisdiction assumed was invalid and whole proceedings were vitiated. It was held that a reading of the circular made it clear that the object behind bringing the circular was for creating an audit trail. In paragraph 2, it had been very clearly mentioned that no communication should be issued by any income-tax authority relating to assessment, appeals, orders, statutory or otherwise, exemptions, enquiry, investigation, verification of information, penalty, prosecution, rectification, approval etc. to the assessee or any other person, on or after the 1st day of October, 2019, unless a computer generated DIN had been allotted and was duly quoted in the body of such communication. A perusal of the DRP order showed that it was clear in the body of DRP order, no DIN number was mentioned nor there was any reason of not mentioning the DIN number in order of the DRP. Subsequent separate communication of DIN was a superfluous exercise, that simultaneous issue of the DIN number was insignificant and superfluous exercise, in the absence of mentioning the DIN number on the body of the communication. The impugned DRP order was invalid and should be deemed to have never been passed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
These appeals by the assessee are directed against the respective orders of the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions issued by the DRP for the respective assessment years.
2. Since the issues are common and the appeals were heard together, these are being disposed off by this common order.
3. Although the assessee has raised many grounds, ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for additional grounds, which are similar in all the assessment years, and submitted that it go to the root of the validity of jurisdiction in this case. The additional grounds read as under:-
“10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in not quoting a valid computer- generated DIN on the body of the DRP directions dated December 16, 2022 passed under section 144C(5) of the Act, in contravention to Circular No.19/2019 dated 14th August 2019 issued by the CBDT, thus rendering such an order/direction to be invalid and never to have been issued as per para 4 to the said Circular.
11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated January 20, 2023 under section 147 read with section 144C (13) of the Act, passed by the Ld. AO pursuant to the invalid and non-est directions passed by Hon’ble DRP, is bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. “
4. Since the additional ground goes to the root of the matter, we admit the same and adjudicate as under.
5. The DRP order in the cases is dated 15/12/2022 / 16.12.2022. At the outset, ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that there is no DIN mentioned in the DRP order which is contrary to the CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14th August 2019 . Hence, he submitted that the said DRP order is void ab initio. He further submitted that in such a situation, jurisdiction assumed is invalid and whole proceedings are vitiated. For this, ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon catena of case laws.
6. Ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted as under :-.
“Sub:- Request for the information in case of M/s Innio Jenbacher GMBH & CO OHG in ITA No. 762, 763, 764, 781 & 920/Del/2023 for A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 – Reg.
Kindly refer to your office email dated 24.08.2023 and the subject mentioned above.
2. In this connection, it is submitted that Dispute Resolution Panel consists of three CITs, the directions/order prepared by the Panel needs to be signed b all the Members/CITs of the Panel and eventually also signed by the Secretary of the DRP while dispatching the order/direction. Prior to the order being uploaded, the signature of each of the Panel members is taken on the DRP order. To prevent any further inadvertent editing from happening after signatures have been taken, the document is uploaded on ITBA in a PDF format. After being uploaded on ITBA portal, the DIN is generated on ITBA portal itself. In this case, the directions/orders u/s 144C(5) for A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 were uploaded on the system on different dates for which DIN [Documents Identification Numbers] were generated by the system. The details of DIN generated are as under:-
