Does an assessment order without a DIN survive after section 292BA?

If a number was generated for the order and the order is referenced by it, for instance in an intimation letter, section 292BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 saves the assessment, with retrospective effect from 1 October 2019. In this firm's view it does not cure a case where no number was generated at all. The validity of the section is under challenge in the Madras and Bombay High Courts.

Does section 292BA apply to a section 148 notice or an approval issued without a DIN?

On its words, no. The section speaks of an assessment and of the assessment order being referenced by the number. The Bombay High Court held an approval for a special audit without a number to be invalid on 8 January 2026, and a satisfaction note without a number on 4 September 2023; the same Court records a Gujarat High Court decision holding a satisfaction note to be outside the Circular, which it declined to follow. The Revenue can argue that the section, being for the purposes of section 292B, protects the assessment from defects in the steps leading to it. The point is undecided.

Has the Supreme Court decided whether an order without a DIN is invalid?

No. In the Revenue's Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 688 of 2024 against the Delhi High Court's decision in Brandix Mauritius Holdings, the Supreme Court on 3 January 2024 issued notice and granted an interim stay of the High Court's order and of the Tribunal's order until further orders. That is a stay, not a decision. The Bombay High Court held on 2 December 2025, in Siemens Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai (para 22), that judgments so stayed have not lost their precedential value.

Until what date can paragraph 4 of Circular No. 19/2019 be relied on?

For a communication issued between 1 October 2019 and 30 March 2026. The Circular ceased to have effect on 31 March 2026 and was replaced by Circular No. 4/2026 of that date, which carries no counterpart to paragraph 4. Paragraph 4 treated a communication not in conformity with paragraphs 2 and 3 as invalid and deemed never to have been issued.

How does section 522(2) of the Income-tax Act, 2025 differ from section 292BA?

In its opening words and its date. Section 292BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies notwithstanding any judgment, order or decree of any court, is expressed to be for the removal of doubts, and is retrospective from 1 October 2019. Section 522(2) has neither the override nor those words, does not refer to section 292B, omits "or shall be deemed to have been invalid", and operates from 1 April 2026. The operative rule is the same: no assessment is invalid for a mistake, defect or omission in quoting the number if the assessment order is referenced by such number in any manner.

Home / Provisions

s.292BA — Assessment not invalid for a defect in quoting the DIN

A retrospective saving under which an assessment is not invalid for a mistake, defect or omission in quoting the Document Identification Number, provided the assessment order is referenced by such number in any manner.

Currently operative

Inserted by section 32 of the Finance Act, 2026 with retrospective effect from 1 October 2019, the date from which Circular No. 19/2019 applied. Its validity is under challenge in the Madras High Court (The Revenue Bar Association v. Union of India, order of 7 September 2026) and the Bombay High Court (Manish Keshavlal Shah v. ITO, order of 25 August 2026). Circular No. 19/2019 ceased to have effect on 31 March 2026 and was replaced by Circular No. 4/2026 of that date. Section 522(2) of the Income-tax Act, 2025 carries the rule from 1 April 2026 in substantially the same words, without the override of judgments.

Income-tax Act, 1961

s.292BA

Income-tax Act, 2025

s.522(2)

In force from 1 April 2026, but s.536(2)(c) preserves the 1961 Act for tax years beginning before that date.

In short

Section 292BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides, notwithstanding any judgment, order or decree of any court and "for the removal of doubts", that for the purposes of section 292B no assessment "shall be invalid or shall be deemed to have been invalid on the ground of any mistake, defect or omission in respect of quoting of a computer generated Document Identification Number, if the assessment order is referenced by such number in any manner". It was inserted by the Finance Act, 2026 with retrospective effect from 1 October 2019. It answers a line of decisions on paragraph 4 of Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14 August 2019, under which a communication without the number "shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued". The Delhi High Court applied that paragraph to an assessment order in The Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, New Delhi v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (20 March 2023, paras 17 and 18), and the Bombay High Court to an order and a satisfaction note in Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxation, Central Circle 2(4) (4 September 2023, para 18). The Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2026 states the aim: "as long as there is a reference of DIN in the assessment order, the same would be sufficient compliance". The counterpart in the Income-tax Act, 2025 is section 522(2), in substantially the same operative words but without "or shall be deemed to have been invalid", without the reference to section 292B, without the override of judgments and without "for the removal of doubts", from 1 April 2026.

What the provision does

Saves an assessment from being annulled because the Document Identification Number was not quoted, or was misquoted, on the assessment order, where the order is referenced by that number in any manner. Its subject is "assessment" and "the assessment order"; it does not name an approval, a satisfaction note, a notice under section 148 or directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel. It presupposes a number and does not supply one that was never generated. It does not deal with the signature, which is a separate requirement under section 282A(1). It does not revive Circular No. 19/2019, whose paragraph 4 is available only for a communication issued between 1 October 2019 and 30 March 2026.

Threshold questions

Whether the document attacked is an assessment order, or an approval, a satisfaction note, a notice or directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel
Whether a Document Identification Number was generated for the order at all
Whether the order is referenced by that number in an intimation letter, an accompanying communication or the portal entry
Whether the communication was issued between 1 October 2019 and 30 March 2026, the only period for which paragraph 4 of Circular No. 19/2019 is available
Whether the order also lacks a signature, which section 292BA does not address

In practice

The recurring disputes.

Whether the section reaches an order for which no number was generated

The Revenue's case is that the section saves an assessment from any "omission in respect of quoting" the number, and an order issued without the number on it is an omission to quote. The saving applies if the order "is referenced by such number in any manner", words wide enough to take in an intimation letter or the portal entry, and the Memorandum names the very case of a number generated and quoted in the accompanying communication. The assessee's case is that the condition presupposes a number: where none was generated for the order, nothing references it and the section does not begin to operate. That is also where the Karnataka High Court drew the line when deciding for the Revenue in The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Unisys India Pvt Ltd (7 July 2026): an order attracts invalidity under the Circular "only where no DIN is generated or communicated at all". The Memorandum itself speaks of a number "lawfully generated". The firm's view is that the section cures a failure to print the number on an assessment order where a number for that order was generated and is linked to it by an intimation, and does not supply a number that never existed. The construction of the section has yet to be settled.

Whether the section extends to an approval, a satisfaction note or a notice

The assessee's case is textual. The section speaks of "assessment" and of "the assessment order". An approval, a satisfaction note, a notice under section 148 and directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel are not assessments, and the Bombay High Court has treated the want of a number on such documents as fatal: on a satisfaction note in Ashok Commercial Enterprises (para 18(d)) and on the approval for a special audit in Sanjay Nathalal Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(2) (8 January 2026, para 13). On the Circular the Revenue has a decision of the Gujarat High Court, Rameshkumar Tulsidas Kaneriya v. ACIT, which the Bombay High Court records in Sanjay Nathalal Shah (para 12) as holding that a satisfaction note is an internal communication outside the Circular, and which that Court declined to follow. On the section, the Revenue's case is that it is expressed to be "for the purposes of section 292B", which covers a notice, summons or other proceeding, and that what it protects is the assessment itself, so that an assessment referenced by its own number cannot be annulled for a defect of numbering in a step that led to it. In the Karnataka case the point was taken for Dispute Resolution Panel directions (para 8.2) and the Court did not need to decide it. The firm's view is that on its words the section does not extend to a document that is not an assessment order. The point is open.

Whether a later intimation letter cures the absence of the number

Before the section the High Courts differed. In Ashok Commercial Enterprises the Revenue produced an intimation letter stating a number for an order that bore none; the Bombay High Court held (para 18(c)) that this "can only seek to regularize the failure to generate a DIN, but yet the requirements of paragraph 3 of the Circular will still remain contravened". The Karnataka High Court took the opposite view in Unisys India: an intimation letter bearing its own number and stating the number of the order is compliance, and a mistyped number does not invalidate an order that the letter identifies correctly. For an assessment order the section now adopts the second view, since reference "in any manner" is enough. The assessee's remaining argument is that this holds only if the section is valid and only for an assessment order; for other documents the Bombay reasoning is untouched by the words of the section. The Revenue's answer is that the Karnataka conclusions rest on the Circular itself and do not depend on the section. The conflict between the two High Courts on the Circular is unresolved.

Whether the section is validly enacted

The validity of the section is under challenge in the Madras and Bombay High Courts. The assessee's case draws on the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment in Bala Sreenivas Rao Somisetty v. The Income Tax Officer (12 October 2026), which struck down section 147A. One ground was that the Finance Act, 2026 came into force on 1 April 2026, when the 1961 Act stood repealed, and the Bench put the point generally (para 106): "any amendment/insertion made to the Repealed Act is not sustainable under law and it has no legal sanctity". Section 292BA is section 32 of the same Finance Act. The Revenue's case is that the only provision before that Bench, and the only one it struck down, was section 147A (para 107), and that the answer is in the Finance Act itself: section 1(2) opens "Save as otherwise provided in this Act", and section 32 provides that section 292BA shall be deemed to have been inserted with effect from 1 October 2019, when the 1961 Act was in force. The firm's view is that the commencement ground is the weaker one. The challenges to section 292BA are pending.