RAHUL YADAV,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, DELHI

PER M. BALAGANESH, AM:

Rahul Yadav Vs. DCIT, Central Circle -7, Delhi AO’) u/s 153C/143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 24/12/2021 for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue of notice and proceedings initiated thereto under section 153C of the Act is bad in law, being barred by limitation and hence the assessment order passed in consequence thereto is liable to be quashed.

3. On the facts and circumstance of the case and law, the assessment order passed by the AO is barred by limitation.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on Taste and in law in rejecting the contention of the assess that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C and the assessment order passed consequence thereto are bad in law in the absence Rahul Yadav Vs. DCIT, Central Circle -7, Delhi of any incriminating material belonging to the assesse being found during the search.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee without considering the fact that the impugned assessment order has been passed without issuance of statutory notices as required under the law.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in making addition of Rs. 16,96,420/-treating the same unexplained money u/s 68 of the Act. (1) That the above addition has been confirmed by arbitrarily rejecting the explanations and the evidences brought on record by the assessee. 7. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 25,446 on account of commission treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69C of the Act.

Rahul Yadav Vs. DCIT, Central Circle -7, Delhi (ii) That the said addition has been made at the rate of 1.5% on the above alleged amounts of unexplained money without there being any basis for the same.

8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the above additions ignoring the fact that assessee's name is not appearing anywhere in any of the statements recorded during the course of search.

9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that assessment order has been passed by AO on the basis of surmises and conjectures, without there being any adverse material on record.

10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition made by the AO is bad in law in the absence of giving opportunity of cross examination to the assessee.

Rahul Yadav Vs. DCIT, Central Circle -7, Delhi 11. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal

3. The assessee vide letter dated 09.05.2023 had filed an additional ground before us which reads as under :- “On the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment order is null and void as the same is in violation of CBDT Circular No.19.2019 requiring mandatory DIN.”

4. We deem it fit and appropriate to address the additional ground raised by the assessee at first, as it goes to the root of the matter and being a legal issue not requiring verification of any fresh facts thereon.

5. We find that the assessment order is framed u/s. 143 (3) of the Act r.w.s. 153C dated 24.12.2021 determining total income of the assessee at Rs.24,04,625/- for the assessment year 2016-17. In the entire assessment order, the Ld. AO had not mentioned the Computer Generated Document Identification Number (DIN) which is a mandatory requirement as per the CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019.

6. For the sake of convenience, the said CBDT Circular 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 is reproduced as under :-

Rahul Yadav Vs. DCIT, Central Circle -7, Delhi Circular No. 19/ 2019 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, dated the 14th August, 2019 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 ward al computerization of its work. This has led is a significant improvement in delivery if services and has also bright greater transparency in the functioning of the tax- administration. Presently, almost all notices and orders are being generated electronically on the Income Tax Business Application (TBA) platform. However, it has been brought to the notice of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (the Board) shut 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 audit trail of such communication.

Rahul Yadav Vs. DCIT, Central Circle -7, Delhi 3. In exceptional circumstances such as,- (i) when there are technical difficulties in generating/allotting/quoting the DIN and issuance of communication electronically: or (ii) when communication regarding enquiry, verification etc. is required to be issued by an income-tax aunturity, 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 available 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 approval of the Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income-Tax for issue of manual communication in the following format- This communication issues manually with a DIN on account of reason/reasons given in para 3(i)/3(ii)/3(iii)/3(iv)/3(v) of the 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….

7. Further, in all pending assessment proceedings, where notices were issued manually. prior to issuance of this Circular, the income- tax authorities shall identify such cases and shall upload the notices in these cases on the Systems by 31th October, 2019. 8. Hindi version to follow. (Sarita Kumari) Director (ITA.II), CBDT