CIT v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (2024) 297 Taxman 228 (SC) Editorial : CIT (IT) v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (2023) 456 ITR 34/ 293 Taxman 385 / 332 CTR 221/ 224 DTR 361 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Assessment order without DIN (Document identification number) has not valid in law-Statutory defects in the assessment order cannot be cured by applying the provision of section 292B of the Act-Circular No 19 of 2019 dated 14-8-209 (2019) 416 ITR 140 (St) of CBDT is binding on the Revenue-Order of Tribunal quashing the assessment order was affirmed-On SLP, interim stay of order dated 20-3-2-2023 as well as order of the ITAT dated 19-9-2022, until further orders. [S. 144C, 147, 292B, Art. 136]

Assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer did not bear any DIN and there was nothing on record to show that there were exceptional circumstances as mentioned in 2019, Circular No 19 of 2019 dated 14-8-209 (2019) 416 ITR 140 (St) which would sustain communication of final assessment order manually without DIN, failure to allocate DIN would not be an error which could be corrected by taking recourse to section 292B and impugned final order could not be sustained. Court held that the object and purpose of issuance of 2019 Circular was to create an audit trail, thus, communication related to assessments, appeals, orders without DIN (document identification number) would have no standing in law. Order of Tribunal quashing the assessment order was affirmed. On SLP interim stay of order dated 20-3-2-2023 as well as order of the ITAT dated 19-9-2022, until further orders.  (AY. 2011-12)