DCIT, CIRCLE -1 , GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. HEMANTA KUMAR BHAGWATI, GUWAHATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 58/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 June 2026AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the insertion of Section 292BA, which clarifies that assessment orders are not invalid due to mistakes in quoting DIN, and the lack of adequate opportunity for the AO, warranted setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee made substantial cash deposits in their bank account during AY 2012-13, which were not explained despite opportunities. The Assessing Officer added ₹2,00,00,000/- to the income under Section 69A. The CIT(A) quashed the assessment order due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order is invalid due to the absence of DIN, and whether the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the substantive grounds of appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 147,Section 250,Section 292BA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2012-13 dated 07.11.2025. The assessee sought adjournment by filing a petition but since there was no justification for seeking the adjournment, therefore, the same was rejected.

2.

The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in both law and fact by quashing the assessment order passed under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the erroneous finding that the said order and subsequent notices were issued without a mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN).

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that the assessment proceedings were conducted via the ITBA platform, which mandatorily generates a DIN for ITA No(s). 58/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2012-13 Hemanta Kumar Bhagwati. all communications, and specifically overlooked the existence of DIN ITBA/AST/F/142(l)/2019- 20/1020888528(1) for the notice u/s 142(1) and DIN 20121127477 for the Letter of Intimation accompanying the final Assessment Order.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) committed a grave procedural error and violated the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) as well as the mandate of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, by unilaterally declaring the assessment order non-est without calling for a Remand Report from the Assessing Officer (AO) to cross-verify the factual existence of the DIN in the Department digital records or providing the AO an opportunity to rebut the assessee fresh contentions with system-generated evidence.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by misinterpreting the mandate of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, failing to distinguish between the electronic generation of a DIN in the system and the mere physical printing of said DIN on the assessee copy, especially when the audit trail is fully intact within the ITBA system.

5.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the substantive grounds of appeal regarding the addition of 2,00,00,000/- made under Section 69A as infructuous, despite the fact that the assessee remained totally non-compliant throughout the assessment and failed to explain the source of massive cash deposits.

6.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the Hon’ble ITAT may be pleased to look into the case on merits, considering the undisputed fact of unexplained cash deposits and the assessee persistent non- compliance, and restore the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act.

7.

Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that even if a technical infirmity was perceived, the proper course of action in the interest of justice was to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, rather than summarily quashing the assessment of substantial escaped income.

8.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an order that is perverse, bad in law, and highly prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, or amend any of the grounds of appeal at the time of the hearing.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that during the year relevant to AY 2012- 13, substantial cash deposits totalling to ₹40,00,000/- and ₹1,60,00,000/- were made in the assessee’s savings bank account on two different dates on 24/09/2011 and 17/10/2011 and also cash withdrawals were made from the same account which amounted to ITA No(s). 58/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2012-13 Hemanta Kumar Bhagwati. ₹2,42,00,000/- during the year under consideration. The assessee’s declared business turnover for the year was ₹1,14,81,163/- with the total income reported as ₹8,20,980/-. Following the receipt of this information, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') provided several opportunities to respond and furnish any explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits but the assessee remained non-compliant. Due to the assessee’s non-compliance to the statutory notices, the Ld. AO inferred that the assessee had no explanation for the substantial cash deposits and consequently the deposited sum of ₹2,00,00,000/- was deemed unaccounted for and added to the assessee’s income u/s 69A of the Act and the total income was assessed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 17.12.2019 at ₹2,08,20,980/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who noted the absence of DIN coupled with non-compliance with the prescribed procedure for exceptional cases and held that the same rendered the assessment order, the demand notice, and the tax computation sheet invalid based on the binding CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 and consistent judicial pronouncements and the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. AO and requested that the same may be upheld and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside as neither any remand report was called for nor the Circular was correctly interpreted.

Assessment Year(s) 2012-13 Hemanta Kumar Bhagwati.

6.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Bench was of the view that no proper finding has been given on the merits of the case. Further, as regards the issue relating to DIN, a new section 292BA has been inserted and which is deemed to have been inserted with effect from the 1st day of October, 2019, 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.”

7.

Therefore, in view of the amendment in the Act by insertion of section 292BA and the fact that adequate opportunity was not allowed to the Ld. AO, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the appeal is remanded to him to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case. Needless to say, the assessee as well as the Ld. AO both shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission they want to make and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the Revenue in its appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose Order pronounced in the open Court on 1st June, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 01.06.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

Assessment Year(s) 2012-13 Hemanta Kumar Bhagwati. Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

DCIT, Circle-1, Guwahati, 617, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, GS Road, Guwahati, Assam, 781005. 2. Hemanta Kumar Bhagwati, Hno 26, Sonali Path Beltola, Guwahati, Assam, 781028. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

4.

CIT-

5.

CIT(DR), Guwahati Benches, Guwahati.

6.

Guard File. //// By order

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →