MOHD SHAFIQ,JAMMU AND KASHMIR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), RAJOURI

ITA 361/ASR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Mohd. Shafiq Cement Store against the orders of the CIT (A), which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 144/147 and 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The primary contention was the absence of DIN on the assessment orders and demand notices, which is mandatory as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal also considered additional grounds regarding the mechanical approval of the assessment by the PCIT, Jammu, without proper application of mind. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of procedural compliance in tax assessments, particularly the requirement of DIN for valid communication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 42018 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2024
• Other Referred Cases: M/s NTPC vs CIT 229 ITR 383, Hexaware Technologies Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation)-1 vs Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Kolkata vs Tata Medical Centre Trust, Kolkata, Prabhakar Amruta Shillak vs Income-tax Officer, Dilip Kothari vs Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) vs Tata Medical Centre Trust, DCIT 2(3) Mumbai vs Indus Bank Ltd, SPS Structures Limited vs DCIT, Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited vs ACIT, Dilip Kothari vs Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Shri Ishak Kasturbagram vs Income-tax Officer, Gupta Domestic Fuels and others vs Income-tax Officer, Harjeet Singh vs ACIT, Abhimanyu Chaturvedi vs DCIT, M/s Nova Properties Pvt Ltd vs PCIT - 3, Ahmedabad, Kellar Asia Pacific Limited vs Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RISHI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT KAPOOR; WAY OF SEPARATE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Presumptive income
• Section: 148; 144; 143(3); 143(2); 153; 22; 44AD

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 Mohd. Shafiq Cement Store, Mendar, Rajouri Jammu and Kashmir. [PAN: CQVPS6948A] (Appellant) Vs. ITO, Ward-2 (3), Rajouri, Jammu and Kashmir. (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA and Sh. V.S. Aggarwal, ITP. Respondent by Sh. Rishi Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement 18.10.2024 ORDER Per: Udayan Das Gupta, JM These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, both dated 07/05/2024, passed u/s 250(6) of the Act 61, which has emanated from the orders of the AO, Ward 2(3) Rajouri, passed u/s 144/147, both dated 25/11/2019. 2. The facts for both the years are almost identical and for the sake of convenience, both the appeals are taken up and disposed off together. I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 2 3. The grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee are as follows: Asst year : 2013-14 ( ITA/360/ASR ) Grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) vide order u/s 250(6) dated 07.05.2024 has erred in confirming the addition to the tune of Rs. 1389863/- made u/s 28 by the learned AO on account of net profit @ 8% on entire deposits amounting to Rs. 17373286/- in bank account. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1389863/- made by the AO ignoring the fact that the assessment framed u/s 144/147 is bad in law since the same is without mentioning DIN which is a mandatory requirement as per Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14th August 2019. 3. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1389863/- made by the AO ignoring the fact that the AO has erred in framing the assessment u/s 144/147 merely on the basis of AIR information. 4. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1389863/- made by the AO ignoring the fact that the AIR information was in respect of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 2236250/- while the AO has made addition to the tune of Rs. 1389863/- by applying net profit rate of 8% on entire deposits of Rs. 17373286/-. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1389863/- u/s 28 without appreciating that the assessee was running a small business of Cement and Saria and without providing the benefit of turnover of Rs. 6147541/- declared in I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 3 the return of income filed u/s 44AD on presumptive taxation basis. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1389863/- on account of net profit rate of 8% on entire deposits of Rs. 17373286/- without providing the benefit of income of Rs. 500000/- declared in the return or income. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1389863/- on account of 8% net profit on entire deposits of Rs. 17373286/- ignoring contra entries, rotation of funds and other receipts which do not constitute turnover. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1389863/- merely on the basis of surmises and conjecture without any independent application of mind. That the CIT(A) has ignored that the notice u/s 143(2) was issued merely within two days of filing of return of income and as such, the assessment order passed without application of mind by the AO is bad in law. 9. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” 4. It is seen that on the day before the date of hearing on 11th September, 2024, the assessee has filed an additional ground of appeal along with an application for admission of the same being a legal issue, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of M/s NTPC vs CIT 229 ITR 383. Additional Ground : I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 4 “That the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the assessment framed under section 147/ 144 is bad in law as the statutory approval was granted in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. This is particularly in view of the fact that the reasons have been recorded in respect of transaction of Rs. 17059886/- while the approval has been granted in respect of amount of Rs. 2236520/-.” 5. Respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court we admit the additional grounds of appeal being a legal ground which goes to the root of the proceedings, for deciding the same on merits. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee individual, is engaged in the business of retail trading of cement and saria, and is located in the District of Poonch, Jammu and Kashmir. On the basis of AIR information received that the assessee has deposited cash in his bank account, amounting to Rs. 22,36,520/- during the FY 2012-13 (relating to the assessment year under appeal) the AO initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act 61, dated 07/09/2018, after obtaining necessary approval from the PCIT, J & K, Jammu. 7. The return filed by the assessee u/s 148 of the Act 61, disclosing an income of Rs. Five lakhs, on a declared turnover of Rs. 61,47,541/-, has been assessed at Rs. 13,89,863/- calculated at the rate of 8% of total bank credits of Rs. 1,73,73,286/-, for the year. 8. The first appellate authority , after considering the statement of facts and grounds of appeal and submissions on record , has sustained the order of the AO I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 5 on the ground that the source of the credit entries appearing in the bank accounts of the assessee has not been satisfactorily explained , and as such the total of such credits in bank account are treated as gross turnover of the assessee, and the profits derived @ 8% of the said gross figure are confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the MOA, and in this appellate proceedings before the tribunal, the assessee has filed a short paper book consisting 25 pages, containing of copies of recorded reasons, copy of approval u/s 151 of the Act 61, copies of notices issued u/s 148 , 142(1) , u/s 143(2) , copy of computation of tax, copy of DN u/s 156 , and copy of letter of the ITO, ward 2(3), Jammu , stating that common DIN has been generated for the assessee dated 25/11/2019 and has also filed a written submission of 22 pages , in respect of his grounds of appeal which are taken on record. 10. The Ld. AR of the assessee requested to take up ground number - 2, first of all, which is related to non-issue or non-mentioning the DIN in the body of the assessment order passed u/s 144/147 and also non mentioning the DIN on the face of Demand Notice issued u/s 156 of the Act 61, which is not as per compliance to CBDT Circular No 19/2019 dated 14th August, 2019. 11. The Ld. AR submitted with reference to the assessment order and the demand notice issued in the instant case, (placed in paper book page 15 to 19 and I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 6 in page 24, respectively) that it does not bear the DIN, neither on the face of the assessment order nor on the face of the demand notice. He specifically refers to paragraph - 4 of the circular no 19/2019 where the board has specifically stated that any communication issued after 1st October, 2019, which is not in confirmatory with para no 2 and 3 shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued. 12. He further refers to the letter issued by the AO Ward 2(3), Jammu, dated 25/11/2019, (placed in paper book page - 25) which is an intimation letter for order u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the Act 61 intimating that DIN has been generated in respect of computation sheet of order dated 25/11/2019 and the DIN may be treated as common DIN for the relevant order and all its annexures. 13. It is well settled by various High Courts that any communication issued to the assessee without generation of DIN is not technically valid and it shall be deemed to have never been issued. 14. In support of above his arguments, the ld. AR has relied on the following judgment: “a) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) High Court of Bombay Hexaware Technologies Ltd, v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 7 b) [2023] 149 taxmann.com 238 (Delhi) High Court of Delhi Commissioner of Income- tax (International Taxation)-! v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd c) 154 taxmann.com 600 (Calcutta) High Court of Calcutta Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Kolkata Vs. M/s Tata Medical Centre Trust, Kolkata. d) [2023] 153 taxmann.com 211 (Pune - Trib.) IN THE ITAT PUNE BENCH 'B' Prabhakar Amruta Shillak v. Income-tax Officer. e) [2023] 146 taxmann.com 442 (Bangalore - Trib.) IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH 'A' Dilip Kothari v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) f) [2023] 149 taxmann.com 287 (Kolkata - Trib.) In the ITAT Kolkata Bench Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Tata Medical Centre Trust.” 15. However, in the instant case it is seen that DIN has been generated on the same date 25/11/2019, by the AO concerned, as a common DIN for assessment order, for the demand notice and also for the computation of income. 16. Now the question that arises is whether, the common DIN generated for the order, DN and computation, issued to the assessee, can be deemed to be sufficient compliance with the mandate of the CBDT circular - 19 / dated 14/08/2019 or not, is very much pertinent in this case. I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 8 17. On this issue the Ld. AR has referred to the decision of coordinate benches of the Tribunal to argue that generation of common DIN does not satisfy the requirements, intention and purpose of the board circular 19 of 2019. DCIT 2(3) Mumbai vs Indus Bank Ltd and vice versa ITA NO 3673/Mum/2023 Co No 122/ Mum / 2023 , order dated 18/12/2023. 17.1 In an almost identical issue where common DIN has been generated for issue of a letter for all the communications relating to assessment order , DN and Computation , the ITAT/ Mumbai Bench has held as under : “Further, it is pertinent to note that para 2 of CBDT Circular No.19 of 2019 specifically mentions that the computer- generated DIN is to be duly quoted in the body of communication, which in the present case is the assessment order dated 05/12/2019. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the intimation letter dated 09/12/2019 intimating that the DIN generated in respect of the computation sheet may be treated as common DIN for the relevant order and all its annexures is not sufficient compliance with the aforesaid Circular No.19 of 2019, as no DIN is mentioned in the body of assessment order passed on 05/12/2019. Accordingly, the assessment order dated 05/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is set aside as being not in compliance with the CBDT Circular No.19 of 2019.” I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 9 18. Thereafter, reference has been drawn to the decision of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of SPS Structures Limited vs DCIT in ITA No 130 / CHD / 2023 dated 22/12/2023 , where it has been held that assessment orders and demand notices are two separate communications qua assessee and carries and carry separate physical existence and identity even though issued on the same date by the same AO pertaining to the same assessment year , and therefore necessarily to carry separate DIN on body of communication . 18.1 The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced for easy reference: “Further, we find that there is consistent view taken across various Benches of the Tribunal starting from the Calcutta Bench in case of Tata Medical Centre Trust (supra), Delhi Benches in series of decisions starting from Brandix Mauritius Holding Ltd.(supra), to Pratap Singh Yadav (supra), to Abhimanyu Chaturvedi (ITA No. 2486 & others dated 3/08/2023) to Sharda Devi Bajaj (ITA no. 3006/Del/2022 dated 15/11/2023), Mumbai Benches in case of Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited (supra), Bangalore Benches in case of Dilip Kothari (supra), Hyderabad Benches in case of Sidda Venkata Surya Prakasa Rao, Indore Benches in case of Shri Ishak Kasturbagram (ITA No. 13/Ind/2023 dated 24/08/2023), Nagpur Benches in case of Gupta Domestic Fuels and others (ITA no. 61/Nag/2022 and others dated 31/10/2023) that the communication issued by the Income tax authorities by way of notices and assessment orders which are not in I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 10 compliance with the aforesaid CBDT Circular no 19/2019 are non-est in eyes of law. As we have seen and discussed above, some of these matters have reached the respective Hon'ble High Courts and the findings of the Tribunal have been upheld in case of Brandix Mauritius Holding Ltd. and Tata Medical Centre Trust. On this account as well, we respectfully follow the collective wisdom as expounded in various decisions rendered by the Coordinate Benches across the Country and do not see any justifiable basis to deviate from the same. 51. In light of the aforesaid discussion and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed u/s 147 r/w 143(3) cannot be upheld and deserve to be set-aside as the same has been passed in violation of CBDT Circular no 19/2019 r/w CBDT Circular No 27/2019 and the same is hereby treated as non-est in eyes of law. In the result, the ground no. 5 of the assessee's appeal is allowed.” 19. It has been further pointed out by the assessee that in the instant case that the assessment order has been passed on 25/11/2019 u/s 144 / 147 of the Act 61 , and the letter for DIN was also generated on the same date 25/11/2019 , but the notice of demand u/s 156 has been generated on 26/11/2019 , (as evident from the DN u/s 156 enclosed in Paper book page - 25) , meaning thereby , that on the date of generation of DIN , ( which was communicated by letter dated 25/11/2019 ) there was in effect no demand notice u/s 156 of the Act 61, in existence. I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 11 20. As such the Ld. AR prayed for deletion of the order on the ground of non- issue of separate DIN in separate communication, relating to separate documents, of assessment order, and demand notice, both issued under separate sections of the Act 61, which is not in compliance with CBDT circular 19/ 2019, and hence it shall be deemed to be held that assessment orders and demand notices, has never to been issued. 21. On the other hand the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld CIT ( A ) and argued that the common DIN generated by the AO on the same date , in relation to the same assessment order , demand notice and computation of income, in respect of the same assessee , for the same assessment year , should , for all practical purpose , be read and considered as one single consolidated communication, which serves the purpose of maintaining proper audit trial as desired by the board and the same needs to be held as validly done. 22. We have heard the submissions of the rival counsels and considered all the materials on record and the paper book filed before us along with supporting judgments. We find that the assessment order and the demand notice has been issued without any DIN mentioned in the order and similarly, no DIN has been mentioned in the demand notice issued u/s 156 of the Act 61 , either, which is not as per provisions of the CBDT circular no 19 dated 14/08/2019, and there is I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 12 nothing on record to show that there were any exceptional circumstances which would sustain communication of final assessment order manually without DIN and the failure to allocate DIN is an error which could not be rectified by invoking the provisions of section 292B of the Act 61 . 22.1 Moreover, even if we consider the common DIN generated on 25/11/2019, even then also we find, that in case of the demand notice issued u/s 156 of the Act 61, the same is dated 26th November, 2019, which means that on the date of generation of the common DIN, there was no demand notice u/s 156 in legal existence. 22.2 Moreover, there are identical judgments of various benches on this issue, that the basic requirement is the quoting of the DIN number on the body of the assessment order and on the demand notice. Subsequent generation of DIN either on the same day or next day and intimated to the assessee by way of separate communication does not satisfy the conditions of para 3 and 4 of the said circular. (a) Harjeet Singh v ACIT (2023) 157 taxmann.com270 Delhi ITAT Where the assessing officers order showed no DIN number , nor there was any reason of non mentioning DIN number , AO order would be invalid and shall be deemed to have never been I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 13 passed , subsequent separate communication of DIN would be superfluous exercise. (b) Abhimanyu Chaturvedi v DCIT ( 2024 ) 159 taxmann.com 445 ( Delhi ) For the purpose of section 153A/ 143(3) , assessment can be said to be made only when DIN is quoted on order before it is signed , if without first generating DIN and before it is quoted on order , order is signed , order is non est . Generation of DIN subsequently and generation of intimation to be sent to assessee are of no consequence for purpose of assessment and raising demand. Similar views has been taken in the case of (c) M/s Nova Properties Pvt Ltd vs PCIT - 3, Ahmedabad (2024) TMI 689- ITAT Ahmedabad, (d) Sutherland Global and Others ITAT / Chennai ( TS -787-ITAT-2023 CHNY, ( e ) Kellar Asia Pacific Limited ( TS - 711-ITAT-2023 Delhi )” 23. Respectfully following the observation of the Hon’ble High courts referred to in above paragraphs and the views taken by the other coordinate benches of the tribunal, we hold that the assessment order u/s 144/ 147 dated 25/11/2019 and the demand notice u/s 156 dated 26/11/2019, (in Form - 7), cannot be legally sustained and it has to be treated that both has never been issued and will cease to have effect in the eyes of law. I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 14 24. Now, coming to the aspect of the additional ground taken by the assessee and admitted by us being a legal issue, the assessee has raised objections to the fact that reasons has been recorded in respect of transactions of Rs.1,70,59,886/- while approval has been granted in respect of amount of Rs.22,36,520/-. 25. The Ld. AR of the assessee took us to the form for recording the reasons for initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the Act, for obtaining approval of the PCIT, Jammu, which is placed in paper book page -2, where the findings of the AO is recorded in paragraph - 5, which, the Ld. AR pointed out that there is no date on the recorded reasons (undated): The para - 5 reads as follows: 26. As per information available in AIR (001), the assessee has deposited huge amount of Rs. 22,36,520/- in his bank account. Further on scrutiny of bank statements submitted by the assessee, it is found that the assessee has made transactions of Rs. 59,51,330 in SBI / CC A/c no 32283357074 , Rs.52,35,981/- in J & K savings bank A/c 0094040100018133 and Rs. 58,72,575/- in SBI savings account no 11402326027, making a total of Rs. 1,70,59,886/- , which could not be verified from his earnings as assessee has not filed any ITR also the assessee has not produced any evidence justifying the cash deposit . I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 15 27. Thereafter, the Ld. AR referred to (page 4 and 5 of the paper book) the approval granted by the higher authority, being the Ld. PCIT, J & K, Jammu, dated 26th July, 2018, where in row - 6 of the said approval sheet, it is stated as follows: 6) Quantum of Income which has escaped assessment Rs.22,36,520/- Referring to the above documents the AR argued that in the instant case the approval granting authority , while granting approval u/s 151 of the Act 61, has not applied his mind to the facts of the case , because the quantum of income which had escaped assessment as mentioned in approval and the quantum as stated in the recorded reasons are at variance with each other , which proves that the Ld PCIT has simply granted a mechanical approval and has not applied his mind to facts on record, because the satisfaction recorded does not reflect application of mind and there has been no objective satisfaction in this case. 28. He further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Teleperformance Global Service ( P ) Ltd vs ACIT ( 2024 ) 161 taxmann.com 258 ( Bombay ) dated 19/03/2024, to state that in the instant case , even if it is considered to be a typographical error committed by the person seeking I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 16 approval , then the forwarding of the said approval through the Ld. JCIT, Range - 2, Jammu, to the higher authority, being the Ld. PCIT, Jammu, the discrepancy could have been noticed if the authorities read the recorded reasons and the approval order, in tandem, and they should have refused approval or sent application back to the AO for filing the correct form of approval , and in such circumstances notice issued u/s 148 is to be quashed, because there has been no application of mind at any stage. 29. On the other hand the Ld. DR could not controvert the arguments regarding the discrepancies pointed out by the Ld. AR, existing in the recorded reasons and the approval form, and also to the fact that the recorded reasons are also undated. 30. We have heard the counsels and considered the materials on record, pertaining to the recorded reasons ( undated ) and the corresponding approval granted by the Ld. PCIT, Jammu, dated 26/07/2018 , and we are in agreement with the assessee that there has not been any proper application of mind resulting in an objective satisfaction of the higher authority , and according approval to an incorrect figure of quantum of income which had escaped assessment , which are at great variance with each other , as mentioned in approval and recorded reasons , cannot be legally sustained. I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 17 31. As such respectfully following the observation of the Bombay High Court in the case of Teleperformance Global Service (P) Ltd, (supra), we hold that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act 61, was to be quashed and set aside. 32. Since we have decided the issue in favour of the assessee on both the legal grounds itself, the other grounds of appeal on merits becomes academic and are not being adjudicated upon. 33. In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA - 360/ ASR / 2024 is allowed. Mohd Shafiq Asst year: 2014-15: ( ITA - 361/ ASR / 2024 ) 34. In this assessment year under appeal, the facts of the case are identical, where the case has been reopened on the basis of AIR information in respect of cash deposit in bank account , and the assessment order has been passed on the same date as that of the immediately previous year by the same AO , u/s 144/ 147 of the Act 61, on 25/11/2019, without mentioning any DIN in the body of the assessment order and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are also identical in nature, challenging the validity of the assessment order passed without DIN , amongst other grounds. 35. Our observation, for the Asst year 2013-14 in ITA No: 360/ASR/2024, shall apply mutatis mutandis to this Assessment year 2014-15, under appeal and the I.T.A. Nos. 360 & 361/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 18 assessment order u/s 144/ 147 dated 25/11/2019 and the demand notice u/s 156 dated 26/11/2019, (in Form - 7), cannot be legally sustained and it has to be treated that both has never been issued and will cease to have effect in the eyes of law. 36. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No. 360/Asr/2024 and 361/Asr/2024 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.10.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (UDAYAN DAS GUPTA) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order "