High Court of Karnataka · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. M/s Unisys India Pvt. Ltd. c/w PCIT (Central) v. Shri H.K. Suresh
Income Tax Appeal No. 55 of 2024 c/w Income Tax Appeal No. 216 of 2023 ·
Compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 (Document Identification Number / DIN mandate): generation of an electronic DIN via a separate intimation letter issued on the next day or a manual typographical error in the body of the order where the accompanying DIN intimation letter bears a valid verifiable DIN does not invalidate a Section 263 or Section 153A order.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
In ITA No. 55/2024 (Unisys India Pvt. Ltd., AY 2017-18), the PCIT passed a revisionary order under Section 263 on 23.03.2022 and generated/communicated the electronic DIN via a formal intimation letter on 24.03.2022. In ITA No. 216/2023 (H.K. Suresh, AY 2017-18), the AO passed an assessment order under Section 153A where a manual typographical error occurred in quoting the DIN inside the body of the order, though the accompanying electronic intimation letter carried the correct verifiable DIN. In both cases, the ITAT quashed the orders as invalid ab initio under Paragraph 4 of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
In an exhaustive 33-page reportable judgment, the Division Bench analyzed the object of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 issued under Section 119—namely, to maintain an electronic audit trail of departmental communications. Where an order is uploaded to the ITBA system, a valid DIN is generated electronically and communicated to the assessee through an official intimation letter seamlessly linked to the order (within 24 hours in Unisys India, and simultaneously in H.K. Suresh despite a clerical typo in the manually typed order header), the audit-trail objective of Circular No. 19/2019 is fully achieved and Section 292B cures any purely technical irregularity.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
Answering the substantial questions of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees, the High Court allowed both ITA No. 55/2024 and ITA No. 216/2023, set aside the impugned ITAT orders, and remanded both appeals to the ITAT to adjudicate the remaining grounds on merits.
4. OUTCOME
Revenue - Both Revenue appeals allowed; ITAT orders quashing the Section 263 and Section 153A orders set aside and matters remanded to ITAT for merits adjudication.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Under Karnataka High Court precedent in Unisys India, CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 invalidates an order only where no electronic DIN is generated at all; if a verifiable DIN is generated on the ITBA portal via an intimation letter (even the next day) or a clerical typo occurs in manually transcribing the DIN, Section 292B saves the order.
Source and verification
33-page official High Court of Karnataka judgment PDF (20260707_KAHC010041072024.pdf, 616,438 bytes).
Original PDF: 33 pages · SHA-256: 7a4629cdf3bb4ad3f10a9b2f5e106ddea4d01cce3d1255ecbb2db106223cd0da
Supplied source-reviewed note retained; original bytes and identity validation checked in this release. Substantive re-review is not claimed for this record.
Applies Sections 119, 153A, 263, and 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. Income-tax Act, 2025 equivalence is not verified.
Full 33-page primary judgment PDF text read and verified page-by-page. Landmark 33-page reportable judgment harmonizing CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 with Section 292B where a verifiable electronic DIN exists on the portal and intimation letter.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.