- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
ITAT rules the revision order without DIN as invalid
ITAT rules the revision order without DIN as invalid
The Income Tax department had initiated proceedings against the appellant
The Kolkata Branch of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the revision order under the Income Tax Act without Document Identification Number (DIN) is invalid and akin to never been issued.
The appellant, Tata Medical Centre Trust is a charitable trust registered under the IT Act. It operates under the Tata Cancer Hospital looking after the treatment of cancer patients. The objectives of the trust are to promote prevention, early diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, and research for cancer patients.
The total income of the appellant was determined as 'Nil' under scrutiny assessment and revisionary proceedings were initiated.
Aggrieved by it, the appellant filed an appeal before ITAT.
The appellant submitted that the impugned order did not contain any DIN nor any reason for the non-issuance of DIN along with the impugned order. It further stated that the authority had to obtain approval of the Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income-tax in the prescribed format in terms of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular while issuing a communication manually without a DIN.
The Tribunal observed that the CBDT circular mentioned 'no communication shall be issued by any Income-Tax authority relating to assessment, appeals, orders, statutory or otherwise, exemptions, inquiry, investigation, verification of information, penalty, prosecution, rectification, approval, etc. to the assessee or any other person, on or after 1 October 2019, unless a computer-generated DIN has been allotted and is duly quoted in the body of such communication.'
The Coram of Sanjay Garg (Judicial member) and Girish Agrawal (accountant member) held, "We are inclined to adjudicate on the additional ground in favor of the assessee by holding that the order passed by the CIT(E) is invalid and deemed to have never been issued as it fails to mention DIN in its body by adhering to the CBDT circular."