TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1332
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the proposed order of assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as the draft order) to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, on or after the 1st day of October, 2009, any variation which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee. (2) On receipt of the draft order, the eligible assessee shall, within thirty days of the receipt by him of the draft order,- (a) file his acceptance of the variations to the Assessing Officer; or (b) file his objections, if any, to such variation with,- (i) the Dispute Resolution Panel; and (ii) the Assessing Officer. (3) The Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment on the basis of the draft order, if - (a) the assessee intimates to the Assessing Officer the acceptance of the variation; or (b) no objections are received within the period specified in sub-section (2). (4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 153 [or section 153B], pass the assessment order under sub-section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,- (a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Pan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 [or section 153B], the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. (14) The Board may make rules for the purposes of the efficient functioning of the Dispute Resolution Panel and expeditious disposal of the objections filed under sub-section (2) by the eligible assessee. "[(14A) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any assessment or reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the "[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA.] "[(14B) The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of issuance of directions by the dispute resolution panel, so as to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability by- (a) eliminating the interface between the dispute resolution panel and the eligible assessee or any other person to the extent technologically ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e direction from the DRP. The Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. The prime ground of challenge in these writ petitions is regarding non-adherence to the time limit fixed under sub-section (13). 4. The relevant dates to be noted in both cases are given below:- Events W.P.(C)No. 9520/2014 W.P.(C)No. 9521/2014 Date of issuance of draft assessment order 27.03.2013 20.03.2013 Date of filing of objections before the DRP 26.04.2013 24.04.2013 Date of issuance of directions by DRP 13.12.2013 11.12.2013 Date of issuance of assessment order 25.03.2014 12.03.2014 Therefore in both cases, indisputably the assessment orders were issued beyond the time limit under S.144C (13). Hence the only issue arising for consideration is the consequence of the failure to adhere to the time limit under sub-section 13. 5. Sri. Raja Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Section 144C was incorporated in the Income Tax Act by Finance Act, 2009 with effect from 1.4.2009. He referred to the budget speech of the Hon'ble Minister of Finance in which objective of incorporating the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uently vitiate the proceedings and the provisions of Section 144C are not merely procedural in nature. The learned counsel made reference to various reported judgments. He placed heavy reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of Bombay High Court reported in Vodafone Idea Limited v. Central Processing Centre and Others [2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2464]. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court considered the provisions of Section 144C and held that it is a self-contained provision, which carves out a separate class of assessees, i.e. eligible assessees. Further, it was held that if the provisions of Section 144C are not strictly adhered to, the entire object of providing an alternate redressal mechanism in the form of DRP would stand defeated. The Bombay High Court, considered challenge against an assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority two years after the DRP issued its direction and held that it was time barred and cannot be sustained. Relevant discussions in the judgment of the Bombay High Court are extracted hereunder:- "21. Section 144C of the Act is a self-contained provision which carves out a separate class of assessees, i.e., 'eligible assessee'. Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax, Circle-25(2), New Delhi, the Delhi High Court has held that the question "whether the final assessment order stands vitiated for failure to adhere to the mandatory requirements of Section 144C of the Act?", is no longer res integra and any order passed contrary to Section 144C of the Act cannot be sustained. 24. In a decision cited by Mr. Mistri in the matter of Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. (supra), this Court has also held as follows : "10. Sub-section (13) of Section 144C, therefore, is very clear inasmuch as the Assessing Officer shall, upon receipt of the directions issued under Sub-section (5), in conformity with the directions, complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. Sub-section (13) also provides that the Assessing Officer can complete the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This means that the moment the Assessing Officer receives the directions under Sub-section (5), he has to straight away complete the assessment and he does not even have to hear the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall simply comply with the directions received from the DRP within....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 144C of the Act. The specific exclusion of Section 153 from the ambit of Section 144C is a conscious action of the law-maker. If the legislature does not have any intention to stick on with the time limit prescribed in Section 144C, there was no necessity of insertion of Section 144C, since there was already a provision under Section 153 contemplating time limit for completion of assessments or re-assessments. Hence, it cannot be said that Section 144C is procedural, but, on the other hand, it is a substantive provision specifying time limit for completing proceedings by the assessee, the assessing officer and the DRP. ................................................................... 16. By inserting Section 144C, the legislature had a specific intention that the time limit prescribed in the provision has to be strictly complied with and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 153, the assessing officer has to pass the assessment order. Hence, it is clear that the intention of the legislature was to comply with the time limit prescribed in the said section in order to avail the benefit of fast track assessment. The assessing officer cannot, at their whims and f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... factor affecting the very validity of the assessment order. He submitted that the Assessing Authority is not vested with any discretion under Section 144C when the DRP issues directions. Once the DRP issues directions, the Assessing Authority has to issue an assessment order following the directions as such. The Assessing Authority in such a situation exercises only an administrative power. He therefore contended that even if the Assessing Authority takes time more than that is provided under sub-section (13) of Section 144C, no prejudice is caused and the assessment need not be considered as vitiated. He referred to various provisions of Section 144C and contended that accepting the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner would result in the machinery provisions defeating the charging provisions. 10. The learned Standing Counsel made reference to various reported judgments. He made reference to the judgment reported in Panchamahal Steel Ltd. v. U.A. Joshi, ITO and another [(1997) 225 ITR 458]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment examined the provisions of Section 144B and observed that once a draft order is made and the matter is referre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the learned Standing Counsel the same is distinguishable on facts. He also pointed out that the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is under challenge before the Division Bench of this Court. He hence submitted that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, upholding the assessment. 11. Though the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Allianz Cornhill Information Services Private Limited, Rep. by its Chief Financial Officer v. Union of India rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) and Others [2023 SCC OnLine Ker 11076] is under challenge in writ appeal, no orders have been passed by the Division Bench touching its operation and precedential value. However, as the learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department strenuously argued that the interpretation adopted in the said judgment of this Court and also by the Bombay High Court in Vodafone Idea Limited v. Central Processing Centre and Others [2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2464] is against the accepted principles of interpretation, to be fair to him, I find it appropriate to address his contentions. 12. The submission of the learned Stand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....various considerations and reasons. 15. An amended provision becomes an integral part of the statute and it cannot be considered and interpreted in isolation, detached from the other provisions of the statute. However, apart from keeping in mind the object of the statute, it is essential to keep the legislative purpose of effecting the amendment also in mind while attempting to interpret an amended provision. Otherwise, the interpretation may defeat the purpose of the amendment. 16. In Rameshwar Prasad and Ors v. State of UP and Ors [(1983) 2 SCC 195] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: "Whenever a court is called upon to interpret an amended provision, it has to bear in mind the history of the provision, the mischief which the legislature attempted to remedy, the remedy provided by the amendment and the reason for providing such remedy." 17. Normally when the legislative intention is clear from the plain language of the provision, the Court need not look into any other aspects. Nevertheless, since the provision was incorporated by an amendment, following the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred above, it is apposite in the case at hand to take note of the objectiv....