DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI vs. SOCORRIANA MINGUEL RODRIGUES, BENAULIM

Since identical facts and similar issue is involved in this bunch of seven appeals, at the convenience and request of both the parties hereto, we have heard these matters together for a common and consolidated order taking as lead case. Resultantly our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs hereinafter shall mutatis-mutandis apply to the ITA No. 14 & 15/PAN/2020, ITA No. 30 & 31/PAN/2020, and ITA No. 39 & 40/PAN/2020.

During the course of physical hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee Mr Kalpesh Unadkat [‘AR’ hereinafter], without going into merits of the case, at the outset has raised an oral legal ground challenging the very validity of the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) in the light of Circular No.19/2019 dt. 14/08/2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes [‘DBDT’ hereinafter]. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative Mr N. Shrikanth [‘DR’ hereinafter] objecting the admission of oral legal ground, has vehemently submitted that, the order of first appellate authority indeed bears the Manual Appeal Register Number ‘CIT(A), PNJ-1/74/2015-16 alongwith the PNJ- 1/10329/2015-16 allotted to lead case. Therefore corresponding Document ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 6

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rules 1963, perused the material placed on record till the conclusive hearing, case laws relied upon by both the parties and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position which also forewarned to respective rival parties.

Before proceeding to adjudicate this issue, we have to first deal with the question as to ‘whether such legal ground raised first time before the Tribunal can be admitted?’ more specifically when it was not raised before the first appellate authority and not the subject matter of impugned order assailed against. In this context, it shall suffice to quote that, the legal ground raised by the appellant first time in the present appeal is arisen out of the impugned order goes ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 6

We note that, in order to prevent manual practice of issuance of notice, order, summons, letter or any other correspondence [defined as ‘Communication’] and to maintain proper audit trail of all communication the CBDT in exercise of its power u/s 119 of the Act, vide circular No. 19/2019 dt. 14/08/2019 has mandated the income tax authority w.e.f. 01/10/2019 for generation, allotment and communication of computer generated DIN in relation to any assessment, appeals, orders, statutory or otherwise, exemptions, enquiry, investigation, verification of information, penalty, prosecution, rectification, approval etc.

Albeit para 2 of aforestated circular mandates for DIN compliance, para 3 thereof provides for five exceptional circumstances wherein manual communication is permitted without initially complying with the DIN requirement, however subject to regularisation within a period of 15 working days of such manual issuance. Here it is worthy to note that, any communication made not in conformity with or in violation of Para-2 save otherwise provided in Para-3, invariably renders the communication as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued.

While vouching the effect of non-generation vis-à-vis non-quoting of DIN, we note that, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court while dealing with similar issue in ‘CIT Vs Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd.’ (163/2023 dt. 20/03/2023), has held that the communication in relation to assessments, appeals, orders etc., which finds mention in paragraph 2 of the 2019 circular, albeit without DIN, can have no standing in law, having regard to the provisions of paragraph 4 of the 2019 circular. It is further observed by the Hon’ble High Court that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘K.P. Varghese Vs ITO, Ernakulum (1981) 4 SCC 173 and in the case of ‘Back Office IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI’ (2021) SCC online Del 2742, the circulars issued by the CBDT binds the Revenue in their administration or implementation, and such circulars cannot be side-stepped causing prejudice to the assessee by bringing to naught the object for which such circulars are issued.

In the light of aforestated legal position & our discussion, in the present appeal we note that, the impugned order bears no DIN in the body thereof, thus ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 6

In result, this bunch of seven appeals of the Revenue stands DISMISSED as not maintainable. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this 10th of August, 2023.