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 assessment orders were invalid for failure to comply with the mandatory procedure under section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Assessing Officer issued demand notices and penalty notices along with purported draft assessment orders.
Analysis: The additional ground was admitted as a pure question of law going to the root of the assessment. The Assessing Officer, while describing the orders as draft, proceeded to determine tax liability, direct issue of demand notices, grant credit of prepaid taxes, and initiate penalty proceedings. These acts showed that the assessment had been finalised in substance at the draft stage itself. The statutory scheme under section 144C requires the first instance issuance of only a draft assessment order, followed by objections before the DRP and then completion of assessment in conformity with the DRP's directions or on deemed acceptance. Since that sequence was not followed, the mandatory procedure was breached and the defect was jurisdictional, not merely procedural.
Conclusion: The assessment orders were without jurisdiction and invalid for non-compliance with section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and were quashed.