Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the pre-assessment notices issued for the relevant assessment years were liable to be quashed as premature in view of the mismatch proceedings and the requirements laid down for sharing of material with the assessee.
Analysis: The writ petitions challenged pre-assessment notices on the ground that they violated the requirements governing mismatch assessments. The governing principle is that assessment based on mismatch must be conducted transparently, with the material relied upon by the Department being furnished to the assessee for response before finalisation of assessment. At the same time, the absence of a centralised sharing mechanism did not bar the assessing authority from independently collecting third-party details, collating the relevant data, supplying the material to the assessee, and completing the assessment in accordance with law. Since the third-party dealer details had already been collated and were available with the assessing authority, there was no reason to treat the proceedings as stalled awaiting the central mechanism.
Conclusion: The notices were held to be premature and the writ petitions were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: In mismatch assessment matters, the assessing authority may proceed without awaiting a central mechanism if the relevant third-party material is collated and supplied to the assessee for response before finalising the assessment.