The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that simultaneous issue of the DIN number is insignificant and superfluous exercise, in the absence of mentioning the DIN number on the body of the communication, thus set aside the order of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).
The assessee in this present case is Toyoda Micromatic Machinery India Private Limited. In the assessment proceeding the TPO has issued the transfer pricing order under Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without quoting the mandatory Director Identification Number (DIN). The order of the DRP was also without DIN.
The Authorised Representative of the assessee Rishabh Malhotra, submitted that the TPO order doesn’t bear DIN in the light of Circular No.19/2019. The said transfer pricing order is void-ab-initio. It was also submitted that DRP order also falls in the definition of communication for the purpose of Central Board of Direct Taxation (CBDT) Circular and it also doesn’t have DIN.
Manvendra Goyal appeared as departmental Representative (DR).
The Bench comprising of Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member and Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member observed that in the impugned transfer pricing order, there is no DIN Number in its body, the Bench further relied on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Abhimanyu Chaturvedi vs DCIT.
The Tribunal held that simultaneous issue of the DIN number is insignificant and superfluous exercise, in the absence of mentioning the DIN number on the body of the communication.
Hence, the appeal was allowed. The TPO’s order and the DRP order was set-aside being null and void. As a consequence, the assessment order also becomes null and void.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
