Section 292BA (Proposed) Explained: Retrospective DIN-Cure from 01.10.2019 in Finance Bill 2026 – CBDT Adjournments & Practical Litigation Strategy
The Union Budget 2026 / Finance Bill 2026 is not limited to rate-related changes (such as revisions in TDS or STT). It also proposes substantive, litigation-facing amendments—primarily in the nature of clarificatory provisions—to address controversies arising from divergent judicial views on certain procedural/limitation and jurisdictional issues.
In this backdrop, CBDT (Income Tax–Judicial) issued a communication dated 02.02.2026 bearing F. No. 279/Misc/M-13/2026-ITJ, advising departmental representatives/counsels to seek adjournments in pending matters involving the identified issues, so that such cases are not finally disposed of until the proposed “clarificatory” amendments are duly enacted and the statutory position is crystallised.
The issues/topics covered in the CBDT communication (and corresponding proposals in Finance Bill, 2026) include:
1. DRP limitation / time limits post-DRP (clarificatory amendments relating to section 144C, with allied deeming clarifications in sections 153 and 153B).
2. Time limit for passing TPO order (proposed clarification in section 92CA).
3. DIN-related validity issues (proposed insertion of section 292BA to cure certain DIN-quoting defects, subject to the conditions stated).
4. Reassessment notices—jurisdictional AO vs faceless units (proposed insertion of section 147A clarifying the “Assessing Officer” for purposes of sections 148 and 148A).
In the present article, we have confined the discussion to the specific issue of DIN-related validity controversies, particularly the proposed insertion of section 292BA (intended to cure certain DIN-quoting defects, subject to the prescribed conditions).
However, we have also published a separate article on the other related issue referred to herein. You may access the same by clicking the relevant article link provided at the end of this write-up.
If you face any difficulty in accessing the article, or if any clarification is required even after going through it, kindly contact us at the details mentioned at the end of the article.
Proposed new Section 292BA (DIN cure) — what problem it targets, why it arose, and what Finance Bill 2026 is trying to “fix” (with retrospective effect)
1) Background: what the DIN regime actually mandated (and why it mattered)
1.1 What the DIN regime is
The modern Document Identification Number (DIN) framework was introduced by the Central Board of Direct Taxes as a governance / audit-trail measure. The Department publicly positioned DIN as a mandatory computer-generated identifier for communications (to improve traceability and curb non-system communications).
1.2 The binding instruction: CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 (DIN mandatory from 01.10.2019)
The DIN regime was operationalised through CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 (dated 14.08.2019) to create a digital audit trail and reduce non-traceable / non-system communications. The Circular / press-release framework did three things that became litigation fuel:
1. Made DIN mandatory on departmental communications (wide coverage—notice/order/letter/summons etc.).
2. Prescribed limited exceptions (e.g., technical difficulties, confidentiality, etc.) and required specific approvals + recording of reasons for issuing manual communication, plus subsequent regularisation by generating DIN within a stipulated period (per the circular’s mechanism).
3. Most crucially (consequences clause): declared that any communication not conforming to the DIN mandate (outside the permitted exception/regularisation framework) would be treated as invalid and deemed never issued.
That “non-est / deemed never issued” consequence is why DIN defects quickly became case-dispositive and limitation-critical.
Key features that drove litigation (as articulated in professional analyses):
- Mandatory DIN in the communication (DIN to be quoted on communications issued to the assessee).
- Strict exceptions (manual communication only in exceptional circumstances, with specified approval and prescribed wording).
- Consequences clause (non-conforming communication treated as invalid and deemed never issued, unless regularised).
2) Why the problem occurred in practice (the “DIN defect” fact patterns)
Post 01.10.2019, DIN challenges typically arose from operational realities such as:
- DIN generated in the system but not printed/visible on the face of the order (template / portal output issues).
- DIN shown only on covering letter / annexure or reflected in the ITBA/e-filing backend, but not “properly” quoted on the assessment order PDF.
- Mismatch / partial quoting (wrong DIN, truncated DIN, DIN on first page but not on subsequent pages where sign/dispatch occurs).
- Cases where the Department invoked “technical difficulty” but did not follow the Circular’s exception protocol (approval/recording/regularisation).
Because Circular 19/2019 used strong invalidity language, these were not treated as “minor formatting defects” by many benches.
3) What courts/tribunals did with DIN defects (pre–Finance Bill 2026 proposal)
A significant line of decisions treated DIN non-compliance as fatal, especially where the circular’s exception/regularisation requirements were not satisfied:
- Delhi High Court — CIT (International Taxation) v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (2023) held that an assessment order communicated without DIN (contrary to the circular) could be struck down; the Revenue’s attempt to rely on general cure provisions (like “mistake/defect” saving / section 292B) did not help on those facts.
- Supreme Court development — the issue had real institutional stakes and was not settled: the Brandix line shows Supreme Court intervention by way of interim stay in the SLP trajectory (reported in the digest/editorial).
- Bombay High Court — Siemens Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) (in context of s.154 rectification) has been reported as strongly enforcing DIN compliance and criticising “communication-only” readings; also discusses backdating/limitation concerns in the facts.
Why this became a serious revenue-risk: once an assessment order is held “deemed never issued”, the Department may be left with a limitation wall—i.e., it can’t simply re-issue a fresh valid order.
4) What Finance Bill 2026 proposes: Section 292BA as a statutory “DIN cure”
4.1 Status and context (as on 9 Feb 2026)
- Section 292BA is currently only a proposal in the Finance Bill, 2026 (introduced in Lok Sabha on 1 Feb 2026). The Bill’s Notes on Clauses state retrospective operation from 1 Oct 2019 (the DIN start date), with notwithstanding any court judgment/order/decree. Relevant extract of section 292BA is given below :
After section 292B of the Income-tax Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely:––
“292BA. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, order or decree of any court, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified for the purposes of section 292B that no assessment under any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to have been invalid on the ground of any mistake, defect or omission in respect of quoting of a computer generated Document Identification Number, if the assessment order is referenced by such number in any manner. - Central Board of Direct Taxes has contemporaneously directed Departmental Representatives/counsels to seek adjournments in matters involving the “clarificatory amendments” (including the DIN issue), signalling that the Department expects the proposed law to materially affect pending DIN-based challenges.
Bottom line (procedural posture): there is active litigation on DIN defects; no reported litigation “on 292BA itself” yet, because it is not enacted at present. What can be assessed today is: (i) the existing DIN jurisprudence that 292BA intends to neutralise, and (ii) the legal vulnerability/strength of giving 292BA retrospective validating effect once enacted.
4.2 Exact placement and drafting style (legislative design)
Clause 26 of Finance Bill 2026 proposes inserting new Section 292BA (immediately after Section 292B). The drafting begins with a strong overriding/validation style:
- “Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, order or decree of any court…”
- “for the removal of doubts”
- “clarified for the purposes of section 292B”
This is a classic validation / neutralisation drafting pattern: it is meant to (a) override adverse judgments, and (b) statutorily “clarify” how 292B should operate for DIN quoting defects.
4.3 What it substantively does (core cure)
In substance (paraphrased from the Bill text): no assessment shall be invalid merely because of any mistake/defect/omission in quoting the computer-generated DIN, if the assessment order is referenced by such number “in any manner.”
Important technical nuance (for litigation):
- The “cure” still hinges on two conditions:
1. DIN must be lawfully generated; and
2. the assessment must be referenced/traceable to that DIN “in any manner.”
So, “no DIN at all” remains factually distinguishable from “DIN exists but placement/quoting is imperfect.”
4.4 Retrospective effective date
The Notes on Clauses / explanatory material state the amendment will operate retrospectively from 01.10.2019.
That date is the same “go-live” date of the DIN regime, clearly indicating intent to validate past assessments that were attacked on DIN-defect grounds.
5) How to read “DIN referenced… in any manner” (real-world litigation meaning)
5.1 Why this phrase is doing the heavy lifting
This wording is designed to defeat hyper-technical DIN challenges where DIN exists but is not placed “perfectly” (header vs body vs annexure vs system reference), because “in any manner” is very wide.
It is designed to defeat arguments of this type:
- “DIN must appear only in the header/body of the assessment order.”
- “DIN on a covering/intimation letter is not enough.”
- “DIN embedded in a system trail / annexure / footer doesn’t count.”
In other words, the Bill is attempting to convert many DIN disputes from jurisdictional/fatal defects into non-fatal quoting defects, so long as there is some demonstrable DIN reference connected to the assessment order.
5.2 What could qualify as “referenced in any manner” (examples likely to be argued post-amendment)
Revenue may contend that “referenced in any manner” covers, for example:
1. DIN quoted in a covering / intimation letter accompanying the order upload/dispatch (even if the order PDF lacks DIN).
2. DIN quoted in an annexure, computation sheet, or “order dispatch” page attached to the order set.
3. DIN printed in footer/margin, or in a non-standard location (not the “body”).
4. DIN reflected in portal-generated communication trail, where the assessment order is tagged/linked to a DIN in system-generated outward communication.
5.3 The built-in limiting condition that still matters (condition precedent)
However, the amendment still hinges on DIN being lawfully generated and referenced:
- the DIN must be computer-generated and lawfully generated, and
- the assessment order must be traceable/referenced by it.
So, even if 292BA is enacted, assessees may still contend that the condition precedent of 292BA is not met where:
- there is no DIN reference anywhere at all, or
- the DIN is not demonstrably system-generated / traceable to the order (e.g., post-facto patch without evidentiary traceability), or
- the dispute is about a non-assessment communication (depending on how the final statutory text is read/argued).
6) “Has litigation arisen on this amendment?” + “Can they do this retrospectively?” — likely litigation themes around retrospective validation
Not yet in the conventional sense—because section 292BA is proposed (Finance Bill stage). What has already happened (and will likely accelerate) is:
- Adjournments / deferrals in pending appeals/writs where DIN is a principal ground, pending legislative outcome.
- Anticipatory commentary that the amendment is meant to neutralise DIN-based quashings and reduce DIN-driven technical invalidations.
Once enacted, two litigation streams are very likely:
1. Interpretation litigation (scope of “in any manner”, “lawfully generated”, what counts as “traceable”)
2. Constitutional/retrospectivity litigation (whether retrospective validation impermissibly destroys vested rights / interferes with final judgments)
7) What DIN challenges may still survive even after Section 292BA (important for litigation strategy)
Because 292BA is framed around “assessment” and “quoting defects”, these categories may remain litigable (fact-dependent):
No DIN reference at all (hardest for Revenue post-292BA):
If the assessment order set has absolutely no DIN reference (not on order, not on covering/intimation, not on annexure), assessees can still contest that 292BA does not get triggered.
Disputes about genuineness / lawful generation of DIN (audit trail integrity):
If assessee can show indications of post-facto generation/backfilling, mismatch, or inability to verify the DIN against the system trail, the controversy may shift from “missing DIN” to “DIN authenticity/traceability”.
Non-assessment communications (depending on facts):
Since 292BA as proposed is assessment-centric, DIN challenges for other proceedings (e.g., s.263, s.154, summons/notice communications, etc.) may continue to be tested primarily under Circular 19/2019 and existing jurisprudence (unless parallel amendments cover them elsewhere).
Cases already concluded and finalised:
Retrospective validation generally impacts pending matters and matters where rights are not fully crystallised; effect on finally concluded litigation depends on procedural posture.
8) How “DIN referenced in any manner” will be litigated (post-enactment)
Expect disputes on:
- Whether DIN reference in portal metadata / covering email / annexure / demand notice suffices even if the PDF assessment order lacks DIN (drafting aims to say “yes”, but facts will matter).
- What qualifies as “lawfully generated”: proving generation through system logs/records, and whether later “tagging” is permissible.
Also expect a new line of argument: whether “referenced” must be part of the communication set served on the assessee, not merely internal back-end metadata (natural justice emphasis).
9) “Authors’ thoughts” (credible, citable summaries)
You asked specifically for “authors’ thoughts”. Representative professional commentaries (useful for client alerts / litigation notes) include:
1. Describes 292BA as a retrospective clarification that DIN quoting defects won’t invalidate assessments so long as the assessment order is traceable/referenced by DIN; notes it effectively neutralises the operational impact of Circular 19/2019 in this area (statute overriding circular consequences to that extent).
2. Frames 292BA as intended to reduce litigation; emphasises “sufficient compliance” where the assessment order is referenced by DIN in any manner, with retrospective effect from 1 Oct 2019.
3. Summarises 292BA as protecting/validating assessments where DIN existed but had technical quoting defects; notes retrospective date 01.10.2019.
4. Highlights Finance Bill 2026’s pattern of “notwithstanding any judgment” + retrospective clarifications (including DIN) as a deliberate move to end conflicting litigation and assert legislative intent.
5. Treats 292BA as one of the retrospective amendments designed to nullify favourable taxpayer rulings on DIN technicalities, validating assessments where DIN existed but had technical defects/placement issues, effective 1 Oct 2019.
Conclusion
Finance Bill, 2026 proposes insertion of section 292BA (retrospective from 01.10.2019) to ensure that an assessment is not invalidated merely for DIN-quoting mistakes/defects/omissions, so long as the assessment order is referenced/traceable to a lawfully generated DIN “in any manner”, notwithstanding judicial views to the contrary. In parallel, CBDT (Income Tax–Judicial) vide communication dated 02.02.2026 (F. No. 279/Misc/M-13/2026-ITJ) has advised departmental representatives/counsels to seek adjournments in matters involving these proposed clarifications, indicating that pending DIN-based challenges may be impacted once the amendment is enacted. Practically, if enacted in the present form, DIN litigation is likely to shift from format/placement objections to fact-intensive disputes on existence of DIN, lawful generation, traceability, and whether the DIN reference forms part of the communication set served on the assessee, particularly where there is no DIN reference at all or traceability is asserted only through internal system records.
******
If you have any queries or issues related to GST or Income Tax, especially in litigation matters, you can contact me at the details mentioned below.
Contact: +91-9818640458
Email: varunmukeshgupta96@gmail.com
Author Bio
