This article examines a highly significant and currently debated issue in income-tax litigation relating to the Document Identification Number (DIN) framework. Although I have addressed this subject on several earlier occasions, the present article focuses specifically on the latest circular issued by the Income-tax Department, namely CBDT Circular No. 4/2026 dated 31 March 2026. Through this circular, the CBDT has revised the framework governing DIN in income-tax communications. The circular has been issued under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and expressly refers to section 292B, the newly inserted section 292BA in the 1961 Act, as well as the amendment made to section 522 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 by the Finance Act, 2026. It further provides that CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 shall cease to have effect from the date of issuance of the new circular.
At the conceptual level, the change is clear. The old regime focused on whether DIN was quoted in the body of the communication. The new regime focuses on whether the communication is referenced by DIN in any manner. Circular No. 4/2026 expressly says that referencing by DIN includes mention in the communication itself, a separate attachment, email correspondence, or otherwise; it further clarifies that every page need not carry DIN, and that public communications such as guidelines and FAQs need not bear DIN at all.
This administrative shift is backed by a statutory amendment. Clause 26 of the Finance Bill, 2026 proposed insertion of section 292BA, which says that no assessment under the Act shall be invalid merely because of any mistake, defect or omission in quoting a computer-generated DIN, if the assessment order is referenced by such number in any manner. The Notes on Clauses expressly state that this amendment takes effect retrospectively from 1 October 2019. The Finance Bill also made a parallel change for the Income-tax Act, 2025, under section 522, with effect from 1 April 2026.
That said, the new legal position should not be overstated. The 2026 amendment is not a universal cure for every DIN defect. It is narrower than the Department may present it. The statutory protection is strongest where there is an assessment order, some form of traceable DIN reference, and the dispute is only about the mode of quoting or placement of DIN. Outside that zone, significant grounds still remain available to the assessee.
Although the Government has granted several relaxations in relation to the DIN framework, substantial areas of dispute and litigation still continue to remain. In this article, I have discussed those surviving issues, practical gaps, and the legal scope that still exists for the assessee. In case you have any doubt regarding the applicability of the circular, the amendment, or the issues discussed herein, you may contact me at the details mentioned at the end of the article.
The revised circular: what it changes and what it does not
Circular No. 4/2026 continues to make DIN the rule for communications such as notices, letters, orders, draft orders and summons issued by the specified income-tax authorities to persons other than officers or authorities under the Act or other laws. It also preserves an exception mechanism for cases such as technical difficulty, field situations where the officer is outside office, PAN migration delay, absence of PAN, or non-availability of functionality in the system. In such cases, the communication must itself state that it is being issued without DIN because of the exceptional situation, and post-facto approval must be obtained within 15 days on written reasons. For cases under paragraph 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c), later upload on the system with DIN referencing must also be done within 15 working days.
This is a substantial relaxation from Circular No. 19/2019, which required that, from 1 October 2019, no communication be issued unless a computer-generated DIN had been allotted and quoted in the body of the communication. The 2019 circular also declared that communications not conforming to paragraphs 2 and 3 would be invalid and deemed never to have been issued, and it required stricter approval for exceptional cases.
Thus, from an administrative standpoint, the law has moved from formal placement to functional traceability. But traceability still has to be shown. That remains the key control point in litigation.
The first major limitation: Section 292BA is confined to assessment orders
The most important surviving point for the assessee is textual. New section 292BA says that "no assessment" shall be invalid because of a mistake, defect or omission in quoting DIN, if the assessment order is referenced by such number in any manner. It does not say that every notice, summons, letter, penalty notice, penalty order, approval, sanction, show-cause notice, 148A(b) notice, 148A(d) order, or demand notice stands retrospectively validated.
This distinction is not cosmetic. It goes to the scope of the validating provision itself. Therefore, where the impugned communication is not the final assessment order, the assessee still has a substantial argument that section 292BA has no application by its own language and that the Department cannot invoke the 2026 amendment to cure the DIN defect in such communication. This is one of the strongest appeal grounds now available.
The second major limitation: Quoting defect is different from the complete absence of DIN
Section 292BA cures only a defect "in respect of quoting" a DIN, and only where the assessment order is nonetheless referenced by such number in any manner. That creates a clear distinction between two different factual situations.
The first is where DIN exists, but it is not quoted in the old format—for example, it appears in the email body, in a covering sheet, or in an attachment, but not in the body of the order itself. That is precisely the kind of case which section 292BA seeks to protect.
The second is where there is no DIN reference anywhere at all—not in the order, not in the covering email, not in the attachment, and not in the system trail shown to the assessee. That is not merely a defective mode of quoting. It is a case of complete absence. The statutory cure is much weaker in such a case.
This distinction finds support in principle from the Supreme Court's reasoning in Laxman Das Khandelwal, where the Court held that a curative provision does not save complete absence; it cures infirmities in manner, not non-existence itself. Likewise, in Maruti Suzuki, the Supreme Court held that a defect going to the root of jurisdiction is not a mere procedural irregularity curable under section 292B.
The Department must still prove an actual DIN reference
The Government's current position is no longer "DIN must be in the body." It is now "DIN may be referenced in any manner." But that flexibility helps the Department only if some actual DIN reference can be shown. If the Revenue cannot produce a DIN-bearing covering email, DIN-bearing attachment, system-generated communication trail, or upload / regularisation record, then the statutory condition that the assessment order was "referenced by such number in any manner" may fail on facts.
In practical appeal drafting, this creates a valuable evidentiary line of attack. The assessee can legitimately call upon the Department to produce:
- the covering email carrying DIN,
- the attachment bearing DIN,
- the system-generated trail,
- and the regularisation record where the communication was initially issued without DIN.
If none of these exist, the assessee can argue that this is not a curable quoting defect at all, but a case where the basic statutory condition of DIN reference is absent.
Circular No. 4/2026 is itself prospective
Another important point is that Circular No. 4/2026 itself is not retrospective. It expressly says that Circular No. 19/2019 shall cease to have effect from the date of issue of Circular No. 4/2026, that is, 31 March 2026. Therefore, for communications issued prior to that date, the governing administrative framework at the time of issuance was still Circular No. 19/2019.
This matters because the 2019 circular was much stricter. It required DIN to be allotted and quoted in the body of the communication and treated non-conforming communications as invalid and deemed never issued. Therefore, for old notices, summons, penalty notices, letters, sanctions or approvals issued before 31 March 2026, the Department cannot rely on the relaxed wording of the 2026 circular to rewrite history. Only section 292BA has retrospective operation, and even that is confined to assessment orders.
Failure to satisfy exception procedure remains a live ground
The revised circular is more flexible, but it still requires procedural discipline where DIN is omitted in exceptional situations. The communication must state the exceptional reason; approval must be obtained within time; and in cases falling under paragraph 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c), later upload with DIN referencing must be completed within 15 working days.
Thus, where the Department claims an exceptional case, the assessee can still test the matter rigorously:
- Was the exceptional circumstance actually stated in the communication?
- Was approval obtained within the prescribed time?
- Was approval obtained from the proper authority?
- Was later upload / DIN regularisation done where required?
If the answer to these questions is no, the assessee continues to have a strong procedural challenge, especially in cases involving non-assessment communications and pre-31.03.2026 documents governed by Circular No. 19/2019.
Jurisdictional defects remain outside the curative shield
Neither section 292B nor section 292BA is a licence to cure every defect. The Supreme Court's decision in Maruti Suzuki makes it clear that a defect going to the root of jurisdiction such as assessment in the name of a non-existent entity—is not a mere procedural irregularity. Similarly, Laxman Das Khandelwal shows that curative provisions cannot substitute for a complete absence of a mandatory jurisdictional step.
For that reason, the DIN objection becomes far stronger when paired with an independent jurisdictional objection, such as:
- wrong authority issuing the notice or order,
- wrong sanctioning authority granting approval,
- notice issued to a non-existent, deceased, or amalgamated person,
- absence of mandatory initiation notice,
- or a proceeding that was never validly commenced.
Once the challenge is framed as jurisdictional rather than merely technical, the Department's reliance on sections 292B and 292BA becomes materially weaker.
Penalty proceedings remain a separate opening for the assessee
Section 292BA does not refer to penalty orders at all. By contrast, Circular No. 19/2019 expressly covered communications relating to penalty as well. Therefore, where the impugned communication is a penalty notice or penalty order, there is a strong textual case that the retrospective statutory cure in section 292BA does not apply, while the old DIN discipline under Circular No. 19/2019 still did apply to such communication issued on or after 1 October 2019.
This gives the assessee a distinct and serious argument in penalty litigation: the Department cannot mechanically invoke section 292BA to cure DIN defects in penalty proceedings merely because the provision now exists for assessment orders.
The appeal portal itself recognises appeals against orders without DIN
The Department's own faceless appeal guidance is also noteworthy. It expressly provides two options while filing Form 35:
- "File Appeal for an order without DIN" and
- "File Appeal for an order with DIN (order issued after 1st October, 2019)".
It further states that if the relevant DIN is not available in the drop-down, the appellant may choose the "without DIN" route and enter the order number / DIN manually.
This does not by itself establish invalidity of the underlying order. But it does support two useful propositions: first, that an appeal challenging DIN defects is maintainable; and second, that the Department's own portal design recognises real-world situations in which the DIN trail may be missing, incomplete or disputed.
Brandix remains relevant, but no longer sufficient by itself
The Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd., Neutral Citation 2023:DHC:2502-DB, remains an important supporting authority because it proceeded on the footing that failure to comply with Circular No. 19/2019 was a serious defect. However, the Supreme Court, on 3 January 2024, granted interim stay of the Delhi High Court judgment as well as the underlying ITAT order. Brandix therefore remains relevant, but it should not be treated as the sole plank of challenge in post-2026 DIN litigation.
The safer course is to use Brandix as a supporting precedent on the mandatory structure of the 2019 circular, while resting the main challenge on:
- the narrow wording of section 292BA,
- the continuing force of Circular No. 19/2019 for pre-31.03.2026 non-assessment communications,
and the distinction between curable quoting defect and complete absence or jurisdictional illegality.
The strongest factual situations for the assessee
From a practical standpoint, the assessee's case is strongest where there is no DIN anywhere at all; where the impugned document is not the final assessment order; where the document was issued before 31 March 2026 and the Department cannot establish compliance with Circular No. 19/2019; where the Department invokes an exception but cannot show the stated reason, timely approval, or later upload / regularisation; or where the DIN defect is coupled with an independent jurisdictional defect. These are the situations in which the 2026 validating regime is least effective for the Revenue.
Conclusion
CBDT Circular No. 4/2026 undoubtedly strengthens the Department in cases where the dispute is only about how DIN was quoted and where the impugned document is a bona fide assessment order referenced by DIN in some manner. The retrospective insertion of section 292BA materially reduces the force of challenges based only on imperfect DIN display or absence of DIN in the body of the order.
But the amendment is not a blanket cure. It does not clearly wipe out challenges involving complete absence of DIN reference, non-assessment communications, penalty proceedings, pre-31.03.2026 failure to comply with the stricter regime of Circular No. 19/2019, or jurisdictional defects masquerading as procedural lapses. In short, the real "glitch" in the Government's 2026 fix is that section 292BA is narrower than the Revenue may suggest and that narrowness continues to leave meaningful room for the assessee in the right factual case.
The author can also be reached at varunmukeshgupta96@gmail.com
CAclubindia
