<?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>Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Set Aside Due To DRP Communication Gap, Rs.10,000 Costs Imposed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86254</link>
    <description>HC set aside the impugned assessment order under s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(3) and remitted the matter to DRP. While petitioner filed objections to draft order with DRP, they failed to notify the assessing officer, leading to final assessment issuance. Though AO was not at fault, considering similar precedent circumstances, court exercised discretion to grant additional opportunity. However, due to petitioner&#039;s procedural lapse in not informing AO about pending DRP objections, costs of Rs.10,000 were imposed payable to HC employees medical welfare fund. Court emphasized this discretionary relief was case-specific based on peculiar facts and not a general precedent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 07:49:45 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 07:49:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=803914" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Set Aside Due To DRP Communication Gap, Rs.10,000 Costs Imposed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86254</link>
      <description>HC set aside the impugned assessment order under s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(3) and remitted the matter to DRP. While petitioner filed objections to draft order with DRP, they failed to notify the assessing officer, leading to final assessment issuance. Though AO was not at fault, considering similar precedent circumstances, court exercised discretion to grant additional opportunity. However, due to petitioner&#039;s procedural lapse in not informing AO about pending DRP objections, costs of Rs.10,000 were imposed payable to HC employees medical welfare fund. Court emphasized this discretionary relief was case-specific based on peculiar facts and not a general precedent.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 07:49:45 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86254</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>