BOMBAY BUILDERS vs. PRINCIPAL COMM. OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/756/2020HC Rajasthan2024:RJ-JD:49517-DB04 December 2024Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issuance of the demand notice on 12.12.2019, prior to the generation of its DIN on 13.12.2019, and the assessment order dated 17.12.2019, which was also issued without a valid DIN at the time of its original issuance (though a DIN was generated later), constituted a clear violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Court found that the circular mandates the quoting of a computer-generated DIN for all communications issued on or after October 1, 2019. Consequently, the assessment order dated 17.12.2019 was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded back to the assessing authority to decide the case afresh, ensuring due consideration of Circular No. 19/2019 and affording the parties a proper opportunity of hearing. The parties were directed to appear before the authority in the second week of January 2025. The Court did not explicitly decide on the issues related to jurisdiction, natural justice, or the validity of the demand and penalty notices in isolation, but rather addressed the procedural defect concerning the DIN.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bombay Builders, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 17.12.2019, a demand notice dated 13.12.2019, and a show cause notice for penalty dated 13.12.2019. The petitioner argued that these communications were issued without a mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN), which is required for all communications from income tax authorities on or after October 1, 2019, as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The revenue contended that DINs were generated for the demand notice and assessment order on 13.12.2019 and 17.12.2019 respectively, but admitted that the original demand notice was issued on 12.12.2019, prior to the DIN generation for it.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 17.12.2019 is liable to be quashed and set aside for being out of jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice, as per the petitioner's claim. 2. Whether the demand notice dated 13.12.2019 is liable to be quashed and set aside for being issued before the completion of assessment, as per the petitioner's claim. 3. Whether the show cause notice for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) dated 13.12.2019 is liable to be quashed and set aside for being issued before the completion of assessment, as per the petitioner's claim. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that all communications, including the assessment order, demand notice, and penalty show cause notice, were issued after October 1, 2019, and therefore, mandatorily required a DIN as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The absence of a DIN renders these communications invalid. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue stated that DINs were generated for the demand notice and assessment order on 13.12.2019 and 17.12.2019 respectively. However, they admitted that the original demand notice was passed on 12.12.2019, which was prior to the DIN generation for it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119,Section 271(1)(c),Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2024:RJ-JD:49517-DB] (1 of 3) [CW-756/2020] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 756/2020 Bombay Builders, Through Its Partner Mohd. Salim, Near Jhanwar Bus Stand, N.h.11, Sridungargarh, Dist. Bikaner. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Rani Bazar, Bikaner - 334001 (Rajasthan). 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Central Revenue Building, Rani Bazar, Bikaner - 334001 (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shafi Mohammad Chouhan (through VC). Mr. Naresh Kumar Kumhar. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order 04/12/2024

1.

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “i) To quash and set aside the assessment order dated 17.12.2019 (Ann-4) as such is out of jurisdiction as well as against the basic principal of law. ii) To quash and set aside the assessment order dated 17.12.2019 (Ann-4) as such is against the principal of natural justice. iii) To quash and set aside the demand notice u/s 156 dated 13.12.2019 (Ann-5) as such is before the completion of assessment, hence is against the law. iv) To quash and set aside the show cause notice for levy for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) dated 13.12.2019 (Ann- 6) as such is before the completion of assessment,

hence is against the law. (Uploaded on 11/12/2024 at 05:08:44 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:49:22 AM)

[2024:RJ-JD:49517-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-756/2020] v) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed.”

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder:

“2. In order to prevent such instances and to maintain proper audit trail of all communication, the Board in exercise of power under Section 119 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has decided that no communication shall 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 Document Identification Number (DIN) has been allotted and is duly quoted in the body of such communication.”

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that prior to issuance of any communication, by the 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, a computer generated Document Identification Number (DIN) is mandatory.

4.

Upon being asked, learned counsel for the respondents has taken this Court to relevant para of the reply, the relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder: “Since, the CBDT, New Delhi make it mandatory to issue a DIN (Document Identification Number) to each and every communication which is to be made to assessee after 1st October, 2019 vide circular No.19/2019 dated 14th August, 2019 (Copy enclosed). (Uploaded on 11/12/2024 at 05:08:44 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:49:22 AM)

[2024:RJ-JD:49517-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-756/2020] Therefore, DIN was generated for Demand Notice and Assessment Order on 13.12.2019 and 17.12.2019 respectively through Income Tax Business Application whereas original assessmet order and Demand Notice have already been passed on 12.12.2019 which is duly verifiable from assessment record and current demand and collection register of the office.”

5.

Thus, it is an admitted position that the DIN for demand notice was generated on 13.12.2019 and the assessment order was passed on 17.12.2019 whereas a demand notice was already issued on 12.12.2019. 6. Accordingly, since it is a clear violation of circular, the present petition is partly allowed, and while quashing and setting aside the assessment order dated 17.12.2019 (Annex.4), the matter is remanded back to the learned authority with a direction to decide the matter afresh while keeping into due consideration the circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 and affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties, strictly in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned authority in the second week of January, 2025. 7. All pending applications stand disposed of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 73-Zeeshan Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 11/12/2024 at 05:08:44 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:49:22 AM)

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →