Itat/202/2023 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption Kolkata v. M/S. Tata Medical Centre Trust

OD-20 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/202/2023IA NO.GA/1/2023PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, KOLKATA-Versus-M/S. TATA MEDICAL CENTRE TRUST, KOLKATA BEFORE: The Hon’ble T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CHIEF JUSTICE -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 26[th] September, 2023 Appearance :Ms. Smita Das De, Adv...for the appellantMr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Sr. Adv.Mrs. Akshara Shukla, Adv.…for the respondent The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 18[th] July, 2022and 5[th] April, 2023, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `B’ Bench,Kolkata, in I.T.A. No. 238/Kol/2021 and M.A. No. 38/Kol/2022, for theassessment year 2016-17. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration :- a)Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal wasjustified in law to quash the order passed under Section 263 of the said Acton the ground of not mentioning any DIN despite the fact that the DIN forthe said order was duly generated and communicated to the assesseethrough intimation letter along with the said order ?justified in law to quash the order passed under Section 263 of the said Acton the ground of not mentioning any DIN despite the fact that the DIN forthe said order was duly generated and communicated to the assesseethrough intimation letter along with the said order ? b)Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal wasjustified in law in not appreciating the fact that the intimation letterenclosing the order passed under Section 263 specifically mentioned that“Order u/s 263 Dt. 31.03.2021 is having Document No. (DIN)ITBA/REV/M/REV5/2020-21/1032079241(1)”, which forms an integralpat of the order passed under Section 263 ? c) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal wasjustified in law in not appreciating the fact that the DIN which was dulygenerated and communicated along with the order passed under Section263 to the assessee was in compliance of the Circular No. 19/2019 dated14.08.2019 issued by the CBDT ? d)Whether the Tribunal was justified in law to dismiss the miscellaneousapplication without considering the issue of generation of the DIN Numberbeing a ground for rectification of a mistake apparent from record as persection 254(2) of the said Act ? We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing Counsel appearing forthe appellant/revenue and Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, learned senior Advocate,assisted by Mrs. Akshara Shukla, learned Advocate, for the respondent/assessee. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the DIN wasmentioned in the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. The learnedTribunal upon examining the facts held that the order does not incorporate theDIN number and it is in violation of the Circular No. 19 of 2019, dated 14[th]August, 2019. In the said Circular, in paragraph 4 it has been stated that anycommunication which is not in conformity with Para 2 and Para 3 of the saidCircular shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never beenissued. The Tribunal on examination of the facts held that the requirement asmentioned in the Circular namely, quoting of the Document IdentificationNumber, has not been followed and therefore allowed the assessee’s appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the intimation lettershould be treated as part and parcel of the substantive order. However, in theintimation letter there is nothing mentioned as to why in the substantive orderthe Document Identification Number was not mentioned as mandated in theCircular. The revenue filed miscellaneous application seeking for rectification of thesaid order. Once again the Tribunal has undertaken a factual exercise and infact, raised a specific query to the revenue to point out how a DIN intimationletter along with the manual order as explained by the Commissioner of Income The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the intimation lettershould be treated as part and parcel of the substantive order. However, in theintimation letter there is nothing mentioned as to why in the substantive orderthe Document Identification Number was not mentioned as mandated in theCircular. The revenue filed miscellaneous application seeking for rectification of thesaid order. Once again the Tribunal has undertaken a factual exercise and infact, raised a specific query to the revenue to point out how a DIN intimationletter along with the manual order as explained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) in his reply fulfils the categorical requirement mandated by theCBDT Circular, more particularly, in paragraph 2 of the said Circular, that thebody of the communication, the order under Section 263 of the Act, must containthe fact and that the communication issued referred to the DIN without justifyingas to how the non compliance of the CBDT Circular dated 14[th] August, 2019,which was noted by the Tribunal when it passed the main order. The Tribunalnotes that this specific query was unable to be answered by the revenue andtherefore the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the order passedunder Section 263 does not satisfy the requirement mandated by the CBDTCircular. Thus, we find no substantial question of law arises for consideration in thisappeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The stay application IA No.GA/1/2023 is also dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)