The Chandigarh Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the non-mentioning of the Director Identification Number (DIN) on the body of the assessment order is non-est.The bench of Aakash Deep Jain (Vice President) and Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) has observed that there is no mention of DIN in the body of the assessment order, and even there is no mention of...
The Chandigarh Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the non-mentioning of the Director Identification Number (DIN) on the body of the assessment order is non-est.
The bench of Aakash Deep Jain (Vice President) and Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) has observed that there is no mention of DIN in the body of the assessment order, and even there is no mention of any exception so carved for non-mentioning DIN in the body of the order, thus not in conformity with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the CBDT Circular.
The assessee or appellant filed its return of income, declaring taxable income. Based on information found during a search operation on behalf of a third party, the assessee company was placed under reassessment. It was because the assessee established a network of subcontractor enterprises that were used to register fictitious expenses in order to reduce overall revenues.
The department made an addition of Rs. 10.30 crore under Section 69C, which was verified by the CIT (A). The department passed the reassessment order, stating that the assessee had not discharged the onus to verify the identities of the subcontractors and the authenticity of the transactions. The assessee filed the appeal, contesting the reassessment order on the grounds that it did not follow the CBDT Circular, which mandates the mention of the DIN in the body of the reassessment order.
The department contended that failure to allocate and mention DIN was a mere mistake, and such a mistake can be corrected by taking recourse to Section 292B.
The tribunal held that the assessing officer has issued the reassessment order without mention of DIN on the body of the order, and therefore, the communication so issued can have no standing in the eyes of the law and is invalid and deemed never to have been issued, and recourse to Section 292B cannot be taken.
Counsel For Appellant: Ashwani Kumar
Counsel For Respondent: Sarabjeet Singh
Case Title: M/s SPS Structures Ltd. Versus The DCIT
Case No.: ITANO.130/Chd/2023