ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, NEW DELHI V. SARLA DEVI BAJAJ, DELHI

MA 187/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple miscellaneous applications (MA 188/Del/2024, MA 183/Del/2024, MA 187/Del/2024) filed by the revenue against Sunder Lal Bajaj, Sunder Lal Bajaj HUF, and Smt Sarla Devi Bajaj respectively, seeking to recall the Tribunal's earlier orders. These orders had declared the assessment orders void ab initio due to the non-mentioning of the DIN, contrary to the requirements set out in CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal had previously dealt with a similar issue in the case of Smt Sharda Devi Bajaj, where it was held that the DIN must be mentioned in the body of the assessment order, and failure to do so renders the order invalid.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315555 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: DCIT Vs. Pratap Singh Yadav
• Laws Referred To: CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN; A LETTER

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE (RETD) SHRI C. V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA 188/Del/2024 (In ITA No. 3008/Del/2022) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) ACIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi Vs. Sunder Lal Bajaj, Flat No. 83, 8th Floor, Kalpataru Pinnacle, Goregaon Mulunk Link Road, Opp. Inorbit Mall, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 100104 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAHB6563M MA 183/Del/2024 (In ITA No. 3009/Del/2022) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) ACIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi Vs. Sunder Lal Bajaj HUF, Flat No. 83, 8th Floor, Kalpataru Pinnacle, Goregaon Mulunk Link Road, Opp. Inorbit Mall, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 100104 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAHB6563M MA 187/Del/2024 (In ITA No. 2866/Del/2022) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) ACIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi Vs. Smt Sarla Devi Bajaj, AE 17, 2nd Floor, Tagore Garden, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ABFPB2232F MA 188/Del/2024 MA 183/Del/2024 MA 187/Del/2024 Page | 2 Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Shri Aman Garg, CA Revenue by: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/05/2025 Date of pronouncement 16/05/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A.M.: 1. By virtue of these miscellaneous applications, the revenue seek to recall the order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Sunder Lal Bajaj in MA 188/Del/2024 in ITA No. 3008/Del/2022; Sunder Lal Bajaj HUF in MA 183/Del/2024 in ITA No. 3009/Del/2022; and Smt Sarla Devi Bajaj in MA 187/Del/2024 in ITA No. 2866/Del/2022. 2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we find that the identical miscellaneous application was indeed preferred before us at the behest of the revenue in the case of Smt. Sharda Devi Bajaj in MA No. 185/Del/2024 in ITA No. 3006/Del/2022 for AY 2015-16. The contents of the said miscellaneous application is verbatim identical with the contents in the present miscellaneous application before us. We find that this Tribunal had already disposed of the miscellaneous application preferred by the revenue in the case of Smt Sharda Devi Bajaj in MA No. 185/Del/2024 vide its order dated 11.04.2025. For the sake of convenience, the entire miscellaneous application order dated 11/04.2025 is reproduced herein:- “1. By virtue of this miscellaneous application, the revenue seeks to recall the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA NO. 3006/Del/2024 dated 15.11.2023 wherein, assessment order was declared as void ab initio for non-mentioning of DIN thereby violating the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. 2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The revenue had sought to state in its miscellaneous application in para (f) that though the DIN was not mentioned in the body of the assessment order, a MA 188/Del/2024 MA 183/Del/2024 MA 187/Del/2024 Page | 3 separate communication was sent to the assessee on 24.12.2021 in the form of attachment wherein, DIN was duly mentioned. Hence, the ld DR argued that it cannot be considered as DIN not being mentioned in the assessment order. 3. In our considered opinion, the DIN mentioned in covering letter is apparently meant for the covering letter and not for the assessment order. The CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 specifically states that any communication in the form of notice, letter, correspondence, emanating from the Income Tax Department to the assessee shall contain DIN and if such DIN is not mentioned, such communication in the form of notice, order, letter, correspondence shall have to be treated as non-est , null and void. Hence, the DIN stated to be mentioned in the covering letter of the assessment order is only for the covering letter and not for the assessment order. This issue was also subject matter of adjudication of the coordinate bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Pratap Singh Yadav in MA 401/Del/2022 dated 27.03.2025 wherein, it was held as under:- “By way of this rectification application, the Revenue under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has contended that the assessment order was passed on 24.12.2021 and the same was communicated to the assessee through common function on ITBA Module along with DIN bearing no. ITBA/COM/F/17/2021- 22/1038318742(1) on 31.12.2021. It was argued that as such, the service of order is not violating the terms and conditions of CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 and finding recorded by the ITAT that the assessment order was passed on 24.12.2021 and was communicated by the Assessing Officer without generating the DIN of the assessment order, which is factually incorrect. The assessment order, demand notice and computation sheet were communicated to the assessee by a letter generated from common function of ITBA module, which was having DIN no. as stated above. 2. We noted that the Tribunal has noted the factual aspect in paragraph 11 as under \"11. A perusal of the impugned assessment order makes it dear that in the body of the assessment order the Assessing Officer has neither recorded the reasons for issuing the assessment order manually without DIN nor the date and number of approval of the Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income-tax. The subsequent communication dated 03.02.2022 issued by the Assessing Officer generating DIN of the assessment order cannot make good the deficiency in the assessment order issued without generating DIN, as, the Assessing Officer has failed to adhere to the conditions of paragraph No. 3 of the extant Circular, wherein, it has been specifically mandated that in a case where the Assessing Officer has to issue the communication manually without generating DIN with the prior approval of the CCIT/DGIT, not only he has to record the reasons for doing so in the file, but, he also has to incorporate in the body of such communication the reasons and number and date of approval by the CCIT/DGIT in the specified format, in the facts of the present appeal, admittedly, the assessment order issued MA 188/Del/2024 MA 183/Del/2024 MA 187/Del/2024 Page | 4 manually by the Assessing Officer without generating DIN does not contain any reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing the order manually without DIN and the number & date of the approval granted by the CCIT. Thus, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the Assessing Officer has issued the assessment order without complying with the conditions enshrined in paragraph No.2 & 3 of CBDT Circular, referred to above. That being the factual position, in terms of paragraph No. 4 of the said Circular, the assessment order has to be declared as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued.\" 3. Now, during hearing, learned DR only stated that a separate letter containing DIN number was issued but this fact is dealt with by the Tribunal in detail in paragraph No.11, as reproduced above. We find no apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we dismiss the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue.” 4. In view of the above, the miscellaneous application preferred by the revenue is devoid of merit and hence, dismissed.” 3. In view of the above, the miscellaneous applications preferred by the revenue are devoid of merits and hence dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/05/2025. -Sd/- -Sd/- (JUSTICE C. V. BHADANG) (M. BALAGANESH) PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 16/05/2025 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi "