Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Court stays assessment order, demand notice, and penalty proceedings for AY 2017-2018 due to violations of tax laws. The court granted a stay on the operation of the assessment order, demand notice, and penalty proceedings for the assessment year 2017-2018, finding merit ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court stays assessment order, demand notice, and penalty proceedings for AY 2017-2018 due to violations of tax laws.
The court granted a stay on the operation of the assessment order, demand notice, and penalty proceedings for the assessment year 2017-2018, finding merit in the petitioner's arguments of violations of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and principles of natural justice. The court directed the respondent to provide instructions and potentially file a counter-affidavit, scheduling a further hearing to address the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the incorrect labeling of the assessment order as a draft order and the failure to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 144C (1) of the Act.
Issues: Violation of provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Breach of principles of natural justice in passing the assessment order; Incorrect labeling of the assessment order as a draft order; Failure to follow the procedure under Section 144C (1) of the Act; Stay on the operation of the impugned order, demand notice, and penalty proceedings.
In this case, the petitioner argued that the order dated 26.03.2021, based on the input of the Transfer Pricing Officer, was not only contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but also violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that despite being labeled as a "Draft Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961," it was, in fact, a final assessment order as evidenced by the contents of the order itself. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings, indicating that it was a final assessment order. The petitioner highlighted that the Assessing Officer should have first passed an order under Section 144C (1) of the Act to enable the petitioner to raise objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel. The court prima facie agreed with the petitioner's contention of a violation of the Act and issued notices for the writ petition and interlocutory application.
During the hearing, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, representing the respondent/revenue, stated that he did not have instructions at that moment but mentioned the timeline for passing the draft assessment order would expire on 30.06.2021. In response to this, the court directed Mr. Hossain to revert with instructions and, if required, to file a counter-affidavit. In the meantime, the court ordered a stay on the operation of the impugned order dated 26.03.2021 for the assessment year 2017-2018, including the demand notice and penalty proceedings related to the same assessment year. The matter was listed for the next hearing on 17.05.2021 to further address the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the violation of the Act and the breach of natural justice in passing the assessment order incorrectly labeled as a draft order.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
of 
TaxTMI 
