The  ITAT  held that the direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel under Section 144C (5) of the Act did not contain a Document Identification Number [‘DIN’] as mandated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes by its Circular No.19/2019 [F.No.225/95/2019-ITA II] dated 14.08.2019; that the subsequent communication intimating the DIN for DRP proceedings did not satisfy the conditions prescribed in paragraph No.3 of the circular; and that therefore, the directions are invalid in law and as a sequitur, the assessment order which was impugned before ITAT is liable to be quashed. In the instant case, the assessment order also did not contain a DIN. The Hon Court observed that it is well settled that circulars issued by CBDT in exercise of its powers under Section 119 of the Act are binding on the revenue. The consequences of not following the directions issued in the circular are also provided in the circular.The issue is no longer res integra. Relying on a decision of  Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. ACIT  [2023] 154 taxmann.com 144 (Bom)(HC)   it was observed that , even a satisfaction note according to the Division Bench would fall within the scope of paragraph No.2 of the circular and therefore, in our view, there cannot be any doubt that the directions of the DRP which consists of a collegium of three Income Tax Commissioners also would fall within the scope of paragraph No.2 of the circular.

Apart from the fact that DRP proceedings did not contain a valid DIN and was invalid for the reasons stated above, the assessment order also in this case does not contain a DIN. There was no explanation offered by appellant for not generating the DIN in the assessment order. Therefore, Appeal was dismissed. (AY. 2015 -16 )