AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssue a writ of mandamus restraining respondent No. 2 from finalising the draft assessment order dated December 29, 2009, and/or from initiating any further steps in respect thereof . . ." 4. Subsequently, during the pendency of the petition, the Assessing Officer had passed assessment order dated August 23, 2010. Hence, the petitioner had sought permission to amend the petition. Accordingly, the prayer clause 16(A)(iii) came to be substituted by the following prayer clause : "A writ of, or in the nature of, certiorari quashing and setting aside the assessment order dated August 23, 2010, passed by respondent No. 2 at annexure H hereto." 5. The facts as appearing in the petition are that the petitioner is a public limited company engaged principally in the manufacture of grinding media, liners, vertical spindle mill spares, etc. For the assessment year 2006-07, the petitioner filed its return on December 12, 2006, declaring a total income of Rs. 54,70,98,922 which came to be processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), on March 7, 2008. Subse- quently, notice came to be issued under section 143(2) of the Act on Octo- ber 9, 2007, pursuant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hannel thereafter. 8. Vide the impugned order dated July 8, 2010, the Dispute Resolution Panel observed that the petitioner-assessee had chosen to withdraw the objections filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel, hence, the draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is held to be correct. The Dispute Resolution Panel further directed the Assessing Officer under section 144C(5) of the Act to pass assessment order in consonance with the draft assessment order already passed by him. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has moved the present petition seeking the reliefs noted here- inabove. 9. Subsequently, during the pendency of the petition, the Assessing Officer has framed assessment pursuant to the direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel, vide order dated August 23, 2010, which is also the subject-matter of challenge in the present petition. 10. Mr. Mihir H. Joshi, learned senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently assailed the impugned order made by the Dispute Resolution Panel. Attention was invited to the draft assessment order and more particularly, the endorsement below the order, which indicates that a copy of the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner had availed of the remedy before the Dispute Resolution Panel, it was not permissible for the petitioner to file appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), are concerned, it was well within the jurisdiction of the Dispute Resolution Panel, how- ever, what is objectionable is the observation of the Dispute Resolution Panel that the petitioner had chosen to withdraw the objections filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel. It was submitted that nowhere in the letter dated April 22, 2010, has the petitioner chosen to withdraw its objections filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The petitioner had only requested the consent of the Dispute Resolution Panel to allow the petitioner to approach the Assessing Officer with a request to issue final order so as to enable the petitioner to file appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the Dispute Resolution Panel, while turning down the request to permit the petitioner to avail of the appellate channel, has not even considered the objections filed by the petitioner and has observed that the petitioner has withdrawn the objections and the Assessing Officer has held that in the circumstances, the draft asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents. It was sub- mitted that the Circular dated January 20, 2010, of the Central Board of Direct Taxes had been issued much prior to the date of filing of objections by the petitioner. Moreover, the application dated April 22, 2010, has also been filed after a gap of more than three months after the issuance of the circular dated January 20, 2010, which indicates that the said application had been filed after due application of mind and proper deliberation of the issue by the petitioner. Attention was invited to the provisions of section 144C of the Act to indicate the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Dispute Resolution Panel. Referring to sub-section (5) of section 144C it was submitted that under the said provision the Dispute Resolution Panel, in a case where any objection is received under sub-section (2) thereof, is required to issue such directions as it thinks fit for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment. Under sub- section (8), the Dispute Resolution Panel may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order so, however, tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....44C(2) of the Act, may file his acceptance of the variations to the Assessing Officer within thirty days of the receipt of the order at the address : Additional Commissioner of Income tax, Room No. 301, Jitendra Chambers, New RBI Lane, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad : 380 009 OR may file his objections, if any, to such variation with the Dispute Resolution Panel within thirty days of the receipt of this order, at the following address : Secretary, Dispute Resolution Patel, # 103-A, Annexe- Building, Aaykar Bhavan, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380 009 and the Assessing Officer at the above- mentioned address. Further. proceedings will be as per the provisions of section 144C read with the other provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 14. On a plain reading of the endorsement referred to hereinabove, it is apparent that the same states that the assessee has to exercise either of two options, viz., to file his acceptance to the variations or to file his objections to such variation with the Dispute Resolution Panel. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioner-assessee would be justified in entertaining a belief that it was required to either file its acceptance of the variatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to file any objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel, but file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the assess- ment order passed by the Assessing Officer later, if the option regard- ing submitting itself to the jurisdiction of the Dispute Resolution Panel was not exercised. As the assessee has exercised the option of filing objections, direction are required to be issued under section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, by the Dispute Resolution Panel. 8. As the assessee has chosen to withdraw the objections filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel, the draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is held to be correct. The Assessing Officer is directed under section 144C(5) of the Act, to pass the assessment order in consonance with the draft assessment order already passed by him." 16. The main grievance voiced by the petitioner is against the findings recorded and directions issued in paragraph 8 above ; hence, it is not necessary to enter into the merits of the findings recorded in paragraph 6 of the impugned order. A perusal of the findings recorded in paragraph 8 and the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel mak....