IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1428/DEL/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 ALONGWITH S.A. N0. 1428/Del/2022 ( In ITA No. 1428/Del/2022)

( In ITA No. 1428/Del/2022)

( In ITA No. 1428/Del/2022)

( In ITA No. 1428/Del/2022)

( In ITA No. 1428/Del/2022)

( In ITA No. 1428/Del/2022)

( In ITA No. 1428/Del/2022)

( In ITA No. 1428/Del/2022)

( In ITA No. 1428/Del/2022)

( In ITA No. 1428/Del/2022)

( In ITA No. 1428/Del/2022)

O R D E R

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

The instant appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the Assessment Order dated 30.05.2022 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022-23/1043248599(1) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ACIT(OSD), Delhi, under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) under Section

144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“General Grounds

1. On facts and in law, the Ld. AO erred in framing assessment at total income of INR 42,04,06,690/- as against the returned income of INR 27,56,51,270/- declared by the Appellant and consequently, raising tax demand of INR 7,51,76,830/-

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the AO/DRP is bad in law.

JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS

3. That the directions dated 17.03.2022 issued by the DRP are patently illegal on account of mismatch between the "date of signature" by the collegium of commissioner/s and "date of directions".

4. That directions dated 17.03.2022 passed by the DRP are void ab initio and non- est, the same having been issued without a valid Document Identification Number. 5. That on the facts and in law the intimation letter dated 30.03.2022 issued by the CIT(DRP-1), Delhi-2 is also invalid as they do not meet the pre-requisites as envisaged under Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes directing generation / allotment/ quoting of Document Identification Number on all communication/correspondence/order by the Income Tax Department.

6. That the DRP/AO erred in not appreciating that Circular / Notification issued by the CBDT in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act are binding on all income-tax authorities and ought to be complied in letter and spirit. 7. That the impugned Final Assessment Order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and non-ext being passed in violation to the mandate of section 144C(13) of the Act, which prescribes to complete assessment in "conformity with the directions" of the DRP.

8. That the impugned Final Assessment order dated 30.05.2022 is non-est, having being passed by the ACIT(OSD) as opposed to the National Faceless Assessment Centre ("NFAC") which had validly assumed jurisdiction over the Assessee.

9. That on the facts of the case and in law, once the NFAC assumed jurisdiction over the Assessee by issuing the requisite notices, it was only the NFAC which was competent to pass the impugned order/s failing which, the entire assessment is liable to be quashed.

10. That on the facts and in law, in terms of section 144B of the Act read with S.O. No. 1434(E) dated 31.03.2021 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT"), the assessment order could only be passed by the relevant income-tax authority designated as an "Assessing Officer" under the NFAC scheme, failing which the assessment framed would be non-est and void.

11. That, without prejudice, on the facts and in law the ACIT(OSD) erred in assuming jurisdiction and passing the final assessment order, without appreciating that once the jurisdiction was transferred to the NFAC, the jurisdictional AO became fiunctus officio and could not suo-moto re-assume jurisdiction over the matter in the absence of a valid approval as envisaged under