TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 696
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned order), passed by the Assessing Officer (hereafter AO) assessing the petitioner's total income at Rs. 5,47,92,27,510/-. 2. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is a draft assessment order issued under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act). The petitioner claims that the AO has erred in passing the impugned order as the petitioner is not an 'eligible assessee'; therefore, no such draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Act could be passed in its case. 3. As is apparent, the aforesaid challenge is founded on the assumption that the impugned order is a draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Act. The Revenue calls into question the said assumption. According to the Revenue, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 31/07/2019, 31/07/2019, 31/07/2019, 09/10/2019, 10/10/2018, 17/10/2019, 05/11/2019, 21/11/2019, 28/11/2019, 02/12/2019 Section/Sub-section under which assessment is Made 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Date of Order 06/12/2019 [emphasis added] 7. The impugned order proceeds to examine the income returned by the assessee and its explanation on various points. The impugned order reflects that the AO had proposed additions to the asseesee's returned income. The assessee had furnished its explanations and contested the proposal to make the said additions. However, the AO had rejected the assessee's contentions in regard to certain additions. Accordingly, the AO had proceeded to make certain additions to the income as returned by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad also made an addition of Rs. 23,32,19,868/-, on account of deduction claimed under Section 80IA of the Act. Paragraph 5.10 of the impugned order, which sets out the AO's conclusion in this regard, is reproduced below: "5.10 In view of the discussions made above, the amount of Rs. 23,32,19,868/- claimed as deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee." [emphasis added] 11. Paragraph 6 of the impugned order sets out the final computation of the AO, in regard to the income as assessed. We consider it important to refer to the said paragraph. The same is reproduced below: "6. Keeping in view of the above, the income of the assessee is computed as under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A/AST/F/144C/2019-20/1021817903(1) Dated: 06/12/2019 15. The said contention is premised on the number of the order, which reads as ITBA/AST/F/144C/2019-20/1021817903(1). Although, the petitioner is correct that if one scrutinizes the order number, it does mention 144C, however, the assumption that the said number would determine the import of the impugned order, is clearly erroneous. The order number is not dispositive of the question as to under which provision of the statute, an order is passed. 16. In addition, it is submitted that the impugned order was not accompanied by a demand under Section 156 of the Act. The same was generated manually on a subsequent date, and without a DIN. The contention that the demand was generated ....