TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) could issue directions or record findings after a final assessment order under Section 144C(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been passed, and whether the DRP's findings regarding non-intimation to the Assessing Officer should be considered.
Analysis: Section 144C permits the DRP to issue directions "to enable" the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment (see Section 144C(5)) and contemplates consideration and issuance of directions while assessment proceedings are pending (see Section 144C(6), (7), (8), (11), (12) and (13)). Those provisions presuppose that the assessment is not finalised because the directions are for guidance to complete the assessment and are time bound. Where a final assessment order under Section 144C(4) has been passed, the statutory scheme shows that assessment proceedings have ended and the DRP's power to issue directions or make findings in relation to completing the assessment no longer subsists. Applying that statutory framework to the present facts, the DRP should have dismissed the objections as functus officio once the final assessment order was already passed and ought not to have recorded findings on whether intimation was given to the Assessing Officer.
Conclusion: The DRP had no power to issue directions or record findings after the final assessment order was passed; the DRP's findings regarding non-intimation to the Assessing Officer are unwarranted and shall not be considered by the appellate authority when deciding the pending appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
