<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (8) TMI 273 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397330</link>
    <description>Section 144C requires a staged assessment process: issue of a draft assessment order, opportunity to object before the DRP, and completion of assessment only in conformity with that route. Where the Assessing Officer issued and served the demand notice, draft order and penalty notice on the same date, the process was treated as having been concluded prematurely and the mandatory procedure under section 144C was bypassed. The provision was treated as mandatory, not a curable irregularity, and later participation did not validate the defect because estoppel cannot operate against statute and section 292B cannot cure an order made without jurisdiction. The assessment and subsequent DRP and final orders were therefore non est.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 11:59:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619692" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 273 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397330</link>
      <description>Section 144C requires a staged assessment process: issue of a draft assessment order, opportunity to object before the DRP, and completion of assessment only in conformity with that route. Where the Assessing Officer issued and served the demand notice, draft order and penalty notice on the same date, the process was treated as having been concluded prematurely and the mandatory procedure under section 144C was bypassed. The provision was treated as mandatory, not a curable irregularity, and later participation did not validate the defect because estoppel cannot operate against statute and section 292B cannot cure an order made without jurisdiction. The assessment and subsequent DRP and final orders were therefore non est.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397330</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>