Itat/250/2023 Ia No: Ga/1/2023 Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemptions Kolkata v. M/S. Rcc Institute Of Technology,Cit Campus(Old),Canal South Road, Beliaghata, Kolkata

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/250/2023IA NO: GA/1/2023COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS KOLKATAVSM/S. RCC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,CIT CAMPUS(OLD),CANAL SOUTHROAD, BELIAGHATA, KOLKATA BEFORE :THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 13[th] December, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv.…for appellantMr. Avra Mazumder, Adv.…for respondent. The Court : - This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of thIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 9.6.2023passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal A Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) inMA No.16/Kol/2013 arising out of ITAT no. 108//Kol/2022 for the assessmentyear 2016-17. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of lawfor consideration.Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 9.6.2023passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal A Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) inMA No.16/Kol/2013 arising out of ITAT no. 108//Kol/2022 for the assessmentyear 2016-17. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of lawfor consideration. a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case theTribunal was justified in law to quash the order passed under Section 263of the said Act on the ground of not mentioning any DIN despite the factthat the DIN for the said Order was duly generated and communicated tothe assessee through intimation letter along with the said order. b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunalwas justified in law is 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/REV5/2020-2021/1032078829(1)” which forms an integralpart of the order passed under Section 263. c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunalwas justified in law in not appreciating the fact that the DIN which wasduly generated and communicated along with the order passed underSection 263 to the assessee was in compliance of the Circular no.19/2019dated 14.08.2019 issued by the CBDT. We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing Counsel for theappellant and Mr. Avra Mazumder, learned Advocate appearing for therespondent/assessee. It is not disputed by the revenue that the substantial questions of lawwhich have been raised in this appeal are squarely covered by the decision ofthis Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Vs.Tata Medical Centre Trust, [2023] 154 taxmann.com 600 (Cal). In the said decision it was held that Document Identification Number (DIN)Intimation letter along with manual order cannot satisfy categorical requirementof incorporating the DIN mandated by CBDT Circular 19 of 2019 and therefore,the order passed under Section 263 manually without DIN was invalid. The operative portion of the Judgement reads as follows: 4. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the DIN wasmentioned in the order passed under section 263 of the Act. Thementioned in the order passed under section 263 of the Act. The learned Tribunal upon examining the facts held that the order does notincorporate the DIN number and it is in violation of the Circular no. 19of 2019 dated 14[th] August, 2019. In the said Circular, in paragraph 4it has been stated that any communication which is not in conformitywith Para 2 and Para 3 of the said Circular shall be treated as invalidand shall be deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal onexamination of the facts held that the requirement as mentioned in theCircular namely, quoting of the Document Identification Number, hasnot been followed and therefore allowed the assessee’s appeal. 4. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the DIN wasmentioned in the order passed under section 263 of the Act. Thementioned in the order passed under section 263 of the Act. The learned Tribunal upon examining the facts held that the order does notincorporate the DIN number and it is in violation of the Circular no. 19of 2019 dated 14[th] August, 2019. In the said Circular, in paragraph 4it has been stated that any communication which is not in conformitywith Para 2 and Para 3 of the said Circular shall be treated as invalidand shall be deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal onexamination of the facts held that the requirement as mentioned in theCircular namely, quoting of the Document Identification Number, hasnot been followed and therefore allowed the assessee’s appeal. 5.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the intimationletter should be treated as part and parcel of the substantive order.However, in the intimation letter there is nothing mentioned as towhy in the substantive order the Document Identification Numberwas not mentioned in the Circular.letter should be treated as part and parcel of the substantive order.However, in the intimation letter there is nothing mentioned as towhy in the substantive order the Document Identification Numberwas not mentioned in the Circular. 6.The revenue filed miscellaneous application seeking for rectificationof the said order. Once again the Tribunal has undertaken a factualexercise and in fact, raised a specific query to the revenue to pointout how a DIN intimation letter along with the manual order asexplained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) in hisreply fulfils the categorical requirement mandated by the CBDTCircular, more particularly, in paragraph 2 of the said Circular, thatthe body of the communication, the order under section 263 of theAct, must contain the fact and that the communication issuedreferred to the DIN without justifying as to how the non complianceof the CBDT Circular dated 14[th] August, 2019, which was noted byof the said order. Once again the Tribunal has undertaken a factualexercise and in fact, raised a specific query to the revenue to pointout how a DIN intimation letter along with the manual order asexplained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) in hisreply fulfils the categorical requirement mandated by the CBDTCircular, more particularly, in paragraph 2 of the said Circular, thatthe body of the communication, the order under section 263 of theAct, must contain the fact and that the communication issuedreferred to the DIN without justifying as to how the non complianceof the CBDT Circular dated 14[th] August, 2019, which was noted by the Tribunal when it passed the main order. The Tribunal notesthat this specific query was unable to be answered by the revenueand therefore the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that theorder passed under Section 263 does not satisfy the requirementmandated by the CBDT Circular. 7.Thus, we find no substantial question of law arises for considerationin this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Following the above decision the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed,as we find that no substantial questions of law arising for consideration in thismatter. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)