The assessee challenged a rectification order purportedly dated 29-03-2024 passed u/s 154 giving effect to TPO directions for AY 2005-06, on the ground that the order did not bear a Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 and was back-dated to overcome the limitation prescribed u/s 154(7). On writ the Bombay High Court held that the requirement of DIN is mandatory and any communication issued without DIN, not falling within the limited exceptions in the Circular and without prior approval of the competent authority, is invalid and deemed never to have been issued. The subsequent intimation letter supplying DIN could not cure the defect. The Court further held that issuance of a show-cause notice u/s 154(3) on 20-06-2024 itself demonstrated that the rectification order could not have been passed on 29-03-2024 and was clearly back-dated after expiry of limitation on 31-03-2024. Reliance by the Revenue on s.292B and the Jharkhand High Court decision in Prakash Lal Khandelwal was rejected as misconceived and distinguishable. Following Ashok Commercial Enterprises, v. ACIT (2023) 459 ITR 100 (Bom)(HC)  Hexaware Technologies Ltd v. ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) (HC) where CIT v.  Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd (2023) 456 ITR 34 (Delhi)(HC)  ,CIT v. Tata Medical Centre Trust  (2023) 459 ITR 155 (Cal) (HC)  and CIT v. Sutherland Global Services Inc., (2025) 175 taxmann.com 897 (Mad) (HC) the Court quashed the rectification order and DIN intimation as being without jurisdiction. Availability of alternate remedy before the Tribunal was held not to bar the writ, as the impugned action was ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction. (WP. No. 2747 of 2025, dt. 02-12-2025 ) (AY.  2005-06.