2025 (1) TMI 1357 - HC - Income Tax

Tax demands and recovery actions cannot be based on draft assessment orders lacking mandatory procedures

KBC Advanced Tech Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Mumbai, Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Delhi, Union of India.

KBC Advanced Tech Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Mumbai, Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/Income-tax Officer, ... ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment were:1. Whether the order dated 30 March 2021 was a draft assessment order or a final assessment order.2. Whether the issuance of the impugned demand notice, penalty order, and recovery notice based on the order dated 30 March 2021 was justified.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Nature of the Order Dated 30 March 2021Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework revolves around Section 144C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that a draft assessment order must precede a final assessment order. The assessee must be given an opportunity to accept the variations or file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the assessing authority.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the order dated 30 March 2021, which was styled as an 'assessment order.' However, it was not preceded by any draft assessment order. Clause 8 of this order explicitly referred to it as a draft order, allowing the assessee to file objections, which indicated its non-final nature.Key evidence and findings: The Court noted the language in Clause 8 of the order, which stated that if no objection was received, the assessment would be completed 'on the basis of this draft order.' Additionally, references to 'proposed additions' in the order further supported its characterization as a draft assessment order.Application of law to facts: The Court applied Section 144C(2) to conclude that the order dated 30 March 2021 was a draft assessment order, as it was not preceded by any draft assessment order and contained language indicating its draft status.Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent argued that the order was a final assessment order, supported by affidavits stating that the mandatory procedure was not followed. The Court found these statements to virtually admit procedural lapses, undermining the Respondent's position.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the order dated 30 March 2021 was a draft assessment order and not a final assessment order.2. Justification for Issuance of Impugned NoticesRelevant legal framework and precedents: Legal principles dictate that demand notices, penalty orders, and recovery notices should be based on a final assessment order, not a draft assessment order.Court's interpretation and reasoning: Since the order dated 30 March 2021 was determined to be a draft assessment order, the issuance of subsequent notices based on it was unjustified.Key evidence and findings: The Court relied on the characterization of the order as a draft assessment order to find that the impugned notices were issued prematurely and without legal basis.Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principles that procedural requirements must be adhered to before issuing demand and penalty notices, finding that the Respondents failed to do so.Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent's argument that the notices were justified was undermined by their own admissions of procedural lapses.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the impugned demand notice, penalty order, and recovery notice were not justified and were liable to be quashed.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'The circumstance that the order dated 30 March 2021 was never preceded by a draft assessment order coupled with the above-quoted Clause 8 clarifies that the order dated 30 March 2021 was only a draft assessment order.'Core principles established: The Court reaffirmed the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements, specifically the issuance of a draft assessment order before a final assessment order, as per Section 144C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Final determinations on each issue: The Court determined that the order dated 30 March 2021 was a draft assessment order and that the subsequent impugned notices were unjustified and quashed them accordingly.