Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
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 final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was barred by limitation and therefore without jurisdiction.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the date on which the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel were received by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of section 144C(13). The majority held that mere uploading of the directions on the ITBA portal did not, on the facts of the case, amount to receipt by the assessment unit when the DRP proceedings had been initiated manually and the directions became visible to the assessment unit only on a later date. Applying the statutory mandate that the assessment must be completed within one month from the end of the month in which the directions are received, the majority concluded that the order dated 30.06.2022 was passed beyond time. The dissenting view held that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer received the directions on a later date and that the order was within limitation.
Conclusion: The assessment order was time-barred and without jurisdiction; the limitation objection was accepted.
Dissenting Opinion: The Accountant Member held that the directions were received by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 20.05.2022 and that the assessment order dated 30.06.2022 was within the limitation prescribed by section 144C(13).