DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI , NEW DELHI vs. SUNIL AGGARWAL , FARIDABAD

The decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Tata Medical Centre (cited supra) is also not applicable because in that case also the department could not demonstrate the issuance of DIN/sending of intimation letter with DIN to the assessee.

The decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court of both single bench and division bench in the case of South Cost Spices is squarely applicable because in that case the Hon’ble High Court clearly decided the issue of DIN on intimation letter as sufficient compliance of Circular No. 19/2019 and there is no requirement of mentioning DIN on the body of the order. Hon’ble Court also held that no prejudice is caused to assessee DIN is not quoted on body of order.

Being the only decision with regard to DIN on intimation letter, being the sufficient compliance of Circular No. 9/2019, it is fully binding on the Hon’ble ITAT because there is no contrary decision on this issue of to 1529/Del/2021 8 Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court. Also the law is fairly settled, that if there is no decision of jurisdictional High Court on a particular issue, then decision of other High Court is fully binding on the Hon’ble Tribunals, even irrespective of this jurisdiction.

As the issue of mention of DIN on intimation/cover letter sent along with the assessment order/notice etc. being a sufficient compliance of Circular no. 19/2019 and there is no further requirement of quoting DIN of the body of the order has been decided by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and accordingly the various decisions of the Tribunal quoted by assessee’s counsel are not being discussed separately because the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court is binding on the Tribunal even though some of the coordinate benches has decided the issue otherwise . because the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court being very recent (i.e. 22.11.2023) of Hon’ble Bench, it has not been considered on any if the ITAT decisions submitted by assessee counsel. 5. We have taken into consideration the submissions of ld. DR. However, we find that all these submissions have been duly considered in the coordinate Bench decision in the case of Abhinav Chaturvedi and others, A.Y. 2013-14 decided on 03.08.2023, to which one of us was in the quorum and the issue has been decided against the Revenue. The findings recorded in the case of Abhinav Chaturvedi and others, (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

In regard to first issue it will be appropriated to reproduce here the complete text of the Circular no. 19/2019 while making the crucial part of it in BOLD : "New Delhi, dated the 14th August, 20 19 Subject: Generation/Allotment/Quoting of Document Identification Number in Notice/Order/Summons/letter/correspondence issued by the Income-tax Department - reg. With the launch of various e-governance initiatives, Income-tax Department is moving toward total computerisation of its work. This has led to a significant improvement in delivery of services and has also brought greater transparency in the functioning of the tax administration. Presently, almost all notices and orders are being 2486 & Ors generated electronically on the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) platform. However, it has been brought to the notice of the Central Boa rd of Direct Taxes (the Board) that there have been some instances in which the notice, order, summons, letter and any correspondence (hereinafter referred to as "communication") were found to have been issued manually, without maintaining a proper and it trail of such communication.

In exceptional circumstances such as, - (i) when there are technical difficulties in generating/allotting/quoting the DIN and issuance or communication electronically; or (ii) when communication regarding enquiry, verification etc. is required to be issued by an income-tax authority, who is outside the office, for discharging his official duties; or (iii) when due to delay in PAN migration, PAN is lying with non- jurisdictional Assessing Officer; or (iv) when PAN of assessee is not avail able and where a proceeding under the Act (other than verification under section 131 or section 133 of the Act) is sought to be initiated; or (v) When the functionality to issue communication is not available in the system, the communication may be issued manually but only after recording reasons in writing in the file and with prior written approval of the Chief Commissioner / Director General of income tax. In cases where manual communication is required to be issued due to delay in PAN migration the proposal seeking approval for issuance of manual communication shall include the reason for delay in PAN migration. The communication issued under aforesaid circumstances shall state the fact that the communication is issued manually without a DIN and the date of obtaining of the written 2486 & Ors approval of the Chief Commissioner / Director General of Income- Tax for issue of manual communication in the following format- "......This communication issues manually without a DIN on account of reason/reasons given in para 3 (i)/3(ii)/3 (iii)/3 (iv)/3 (v) of the CBDT Circular No ... dated .... (strike off those which are not applicable) and with the approval of the Chief Commissioner / Director General of Income Tax vide number .... dated .. .. "

It will also be appropriate to reproduce the relevant content of instructions from Directorate of Income Tax (System), dated 25.10.2019 as follows :- "Subject: Changes in facility for generation of Document Identification Number (DIN) for manual documents in Income Tax Business Application (ITBA)/ITD - Reg. Madam/Sir, 2486 & Ors This is in reference to the subject mentioned above. It is informed that the facility for generation of Document Identification Number (DIN) for documents prepared outside ITBA system and uploaded manually is now made available in Income Tax Business Application from 25/10/2019. Now, DIN can be generated prior to uploading the document in ITBA.

ITBA provides the functionality to capture and upload the letters, notices and orders issued manually and served on the assessee by users due to any exceptional reasons like technical issue in system etc. DIN was generated for every such document uploaded manually. However, there was no facility to quote the system generated DIN in the physical copy of documents. to 1529/Del/2021 12 3. Therefore, whenever user uploads a document which was issued outside ITBA system, DIN will be generated prior to uploading of such manual letter or notice or order in ITBA. User may use the same for reference and quoting as Doc. No. in physical copy.

Intimation letter will continue to be generated in ITBA. The same document will also be shared with e-Filing portal through e- Proceedings interface for authentication purpose. Assessee can verify the authenticity of the Letter or Notice or Order issued by Income Tax Authorities (ITA) in e-Filing portal. Such intimation along with Letter/Notice/Orders also made available in View/Download Letter/Notice/Orders screen if users wish to dispatch the same through post.Steps to be followed for DIN generation in ITBA application are as below:- i. Navigate to Generate Letter/Notice/Orders ii. Select Manual to System option screen. iii. User will enter the Date of Issue and Manual File No. iv. Click on Save and Generate DIN. NOTE: DIN will be generated in the system and will be displayed in column 'System Doc. No.' User should physically sign the document after quoting DIN before uploading, as the assessee will be viewing the uploaded document on their e-Proceeding account on e-filing portal. v. User will attach the file and click on Save NOTE: User will be able to upload the document with the DIN no. generated in ITBA system until the row containing that DIN is deleted by the user from the system. vi. Click on Generate button to complete the process in ITBA system. The system generated Intimation letter will also be generated for reference and will be available in View/Download Letter/Notice/Orders screen for user to download the same." to 1529/Del/2021 13 14. Now considering the vital piece of material before us is the letter dated 27.06.2023 in the form of report submitted by the Ld. AO which makes it 2486 & Ors admitted that the order was passed manually. It was uploaded on ITBA on 17.09.2021. The DIN no. was generated on 17.09.2021 through ITBA. Ld. AO admitted that to his understanding whenever manually is passed the assessment order is uploaded on ITBA through manual to system tab, a DIN is generated for that particular assessment order. Accordingly, the DIN was generated in the cases and intimations were sent.

However, from the assessment order it does not appear that Ld. AO had proceeded to pass the order manually. There is nothing in the assessment order mentioning the reasons which as exception only allow passing of the assessment order manually. 15.1 In this context from the aforesaid Circular no. 19/2019 it can be noted that it mandates that if the 'communication' is issued under aforesaid three exceptions the 'communication' shall state the fact that the 'communication' is issued manually without a DIN and the date of obtaining of the written approval of the Chief Commissioner / Director General of Income-Tax for issue of manual communication in the following format- "......This communication issues manually without a DIN on account of reason/reasons given in para 3 (i)/3(ii)/3 (iii)/3 (iv)/3 (v) of the CBDT Circular No ... dated .... (strike off those which are not applicable) and with the approval of the Chief Commissioner / Director General of Income Tax vide number .... dated .. .. " 15.2 To make it crystal clear here the words 'Communication' is not used to define merely the mode of transmission of the information but the circular No 19 of 2019 makes it clear by defining it in following words "However, it has been brought to the notice of the Central Boa rd of Direct Taxes (the Board) that there have been some instances in which the notice, order, summons, letter and any correspondence (hereinafter referred to as "communication"). So the assessment order itself is a communication and all compliances expected have to be specific to the assessment order. 15.3 Coming back to the assessment orders, in fact as para no. 1 to 3.1 of the assessment order dated 09.08.2021 are considered they mention that notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued through ITBA portal. Subsequent notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was also issued through ITBA Portal. Thus, the to 1529/Del/2021 14 notices for the purpose of assessment were issued through ITBA Portal and if thereafter the assessment was carried out manually the assessment order should have mentioned the aforesaid fact to comply with the mandate of Circular with regard to communications issued manually.

Further, the Bench takes note of the instructions dated 25.10.19, which lay down that when a document is prepared outside ITBA system and uploaded manually, a DIN is required to be generated prior to uploading the document in ITBA. The instructions make it imperative that the DIN so generated has to be used for reference and quoting a document number in a physical copy. The instructions specifically provide that the user (assessing officer) should physically sign the document after quoting DIN, before uploading. Meaning thereby that generation of DIN is condition precedent for making an assessment manually or otherwise on the ITBA and then before it is uploaded on ITBA, first it should have DIN bearing on its face and then only it should be signed. Thus for the purpose of section 153A/143(3) of the Act, the assessment can be said to be 'made' only when the DIN is quoted on the order before it is signed. If without first generating the DIN and before it is quoted on the order, the order is signed, the order is non-est.

The Bench is of considered view that forwarding of the intimation of generation of the DIN in ITBA is only a subsequent action and that is not part of assessment order. The manner in which the word 'communication' is defined shows every notice, order, summons, letter and any correspondence from Tax authorities should have a DIN quoted and it is for this reason that the Intimation issued about the DIN of assessment order itself has a DIN quoted on it.”

Now, dealing with submissions of Ld. DR specifically that Board’s circular cannot be applied beyond the Act, we completely disagree and are constrained to observe that argument raised is against now crystallized proposition of law that as far as the Circulars of the Board are concerned, they are binding upon the officers of the Revenue Department without any exceptions whatsoever. In support of this plea of to 1529/Del/2021 15 assessee that the 2019 Circular is binding on the revenue Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (supra) has considered judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in UCO Bank v. CIT, [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC), Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT, [1971] 182 ITR 913 (SC) and held as follows; “17.1 It is also well established that circulars issued by the CBDT in exercise of its powers under Section 119 of the Act are binding on the revenue. 17.2 The aforementioned principle stands enunciated in a long line of judgements, including the Supreme Court’s judgment rendered in Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Anr., (1981) 4 SCC 173. The relevant extracts are set forth hereafter: “12. But the construction which is commending itself to us does not rest merely on the principle of contemporanea expositio. The two circulars of the Central Board of Direct Taxes to which we have just referred are legally binding on the Revenue and this binding character attaches to the two circulars even if they be found not in accordance with the correct interpretation of sub-section (2) and they depart or deviate from such construction. It is now well settled as a result of two decisions of this Court, one in Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen [AIR 1965 SC 1375 : (1965) 1 SCR 909 : 56 ITR 198] and the other in Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT [(1979) 4 SCC 565] that circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 119 of the Act are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Act even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act. The question which arose in Navnitlal C. Javeri case [AIR 1965 SC 1375 : (1965) 1 SCR 909 : 56 ITR 198] was in regard to the constitutional validity of Sections 2(6-A)(e) and 12(1-B) which were introduced in the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 by the Finance Act, 1955 with effect from April 1, 1955. These two sections provided that any payment made by a closely held company to its shareholders by way of advance or loan to the extent to which the company possesses accumulated profits shall be treated as dividend taxable under the Act and this would include any loan or advance made in any previous year relevant to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 1955- 56, if such loan or advance remained outstanding on the first day of the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 1955-56. The constitutional validity of these two sections was assailed on the ground that they imposed unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of the assessee under to 1529/Del/2021 16 Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution by taxing outstanding loans or advances of past years as dividend. The Revenue however relied on a circular issued by the Central Board of Revenue under Section 5(8) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 which corresponded to Section 119 of the present Act and this circular provided that if any such outstanding loans or advances of past years were repaid on or before June 30, 1955, they would not be taken into account in determining the tax liability of the shareholders to whom such loans or advances were given. This circular was clearly contrary to the plain language of Section 2(6-A)(e) and Section 12(1-B), but even so this Court held that it was binding on the Revenue and since: “past transactions which would normally have attracted the stringent provisions of Section 12(1-B) as it was introduced in 1955, were substantially granted exemption from the operation of the said provisions by making it clear to all the companies and their shareholders that if the past loans were genuinely refunded to the companies they would not be taken into account under Section 12(1-B),” Sections 2(6- A)(e) and 12(1-B) did not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality. This decision was followed in Ellerman Lines case [(1972) 4 SCC 474 : 1974 SCC (Tax) 304 : 82 ITR 913] where referring to another circular issued by the Central Board of Revenue under Section 5(8) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 on which reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee, this Court observed: “Now, coming to the question as to the effect of instructions issued under Section 5(8) of the Act, this Court observed in Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Bombay [AIR 1965 SC 1375 : (1965) 1 SCR 909 : 56 ITR 198] : „It is clear that a circular of the kind which was issued by the Board would be binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Act under Section 5(8) of the Act. This circular pointed out to all the officers that it was likely that some of the companies might have advanced loans to their shareholders as a result of genuine transactions of loans, and the idea was not to affect such transactions and not to bring them within the mischief of the new provision.‟ The directions given in that circular clearly deviated from the provisions of the Act, yet this Court held that the circular was binding on the Income Tax Officer.” The two circulars of the Central Board of Direct Taxes referred to above must therefore be held to be binding on the Revenue in the administration or implementation of sub-section (2) and this sub-section must be read as applicable only to cases where there is understatement of the consideration in respect of the transfer.” [Emphasis is ours] to 1529/Del/2021 17 17.3 Also see the following observations of a coordinate bench in Back Office IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2742, in the context of the impact of circulars issued by the revenue: “24....In this context, tax administrators have to bear in mind the well established dicta that circulars issued by the statutory authorities are binding on them, although, they cannot dictate the manner in which assessment has to be carried out in a particular case. A Circular cannot be side-stepped causing prejudice to the assessee by bringing to naught the object for which it is issued. [See: K.P.Varghese vs. Income-tax Digitally [1981] 7 Taxman 13 (SC); Also see: UCO Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., (1999) 4 SCC 599].”

Once this is the case, then, the plea that the CBDT Circulars are within the limited domain of delegated legislation, so the Tribunal should consider the interpretation of the Circulars on the principles of functional or purposeful interpretation or that the non-mentioning of DIN is a mere procedural violation have no substance left.

The difference pointed out in the passing of an order and issuing communication of order is very much clarified by the Circular as the word ‘communication’ has been primarily used in the sense of a ‘Noun’, specifying what all sorts of orders, notices etc. will require DIN on the body. It is not used in the form of a ‘verb’ indicating the mode of transmission of information or delivery or transmitting a copy thereof as ‘service of the notice’ refered u/s 282 of the Act. Thus to say that there is merely an improper manner of service abs such rigour is mitigated by Section 292BB is quite misconceived. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (supra) has specifically dealt with applicability of Section 292BB and has held as follows; “18. The argument advanced on behalf the appellant/revenue, that recourse can be taken to Section 292B of the Act, is untenable, having regard to the phraseology used in paragraph 4 of the 2019 Circular.” to 1529/Del/2021 19 11. Then coming to the case laws relied we find that the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court judgement in the case of Prakash Lal Khandelwal vs. CIT (supra) has been held to be inapplicable to the extant fact-situation by our coordinate Bench in the case of Abhinav Chaturvedi and others (supra).