2025 (11) TMI 170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....shing the order dated 08.11.2019 bearing No. ITBA/AST/F/17/2019-20/1020020805(1) passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure-S) rejecting the Petitioner's objections to reopening of the assessment; (ii) quashing the order dated 18.10.2019 (Annexure-N) bearing No. ITBA/TPO/F/17/2019-20/1019079147(1) passed by the 2nd Respondent under Section 92CA O the Act for the assessment year 2015-16; (iii) quashing the final assessment order dated 13.12.20 bearing No. ITBA/AST/M/147/2019-20/1022290754 passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure-T) Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for assessment year 2015-16; (iv) Quashing the corrigendum bearing No. ITBA/COM/F/17/201-20/1022424645(1) dated: 16.12.2019 issued by the 1s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... I.T. Act in October 2018 without informing or notifying the petitioner. 4. It is contended that subsequently on 23.10.2018, the 2nd respondent issued a notice to the petitioner informing him about the commencement of the proceedings under Section 92CA of the I.T. Act calling for certain details, which was followed by a notice dated 15.05.2019 under Section 271G of the I.T. Act, the petitioner not only furnished the details vide Annexure-E dated 23.05.2019 but also replied to the notice issued under Section 271G of the Act on 23.05.2019 requesting to drop the penalty proceedings; so also, petitioner addressed a letter dated 28.05.2019 to the 1st respondent to dispose of the objections filed to the reasons recorded before proceeding with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1st respondent passed one more order at Annexure-X dated 20.01.2020 followed by a Notice at Annexure-Y dated 20.01.2020. In the said 2nd assessment order, the 1st respondent specifically stated that the earlier order dated 13.12.2019 was only a Draft assessment order and as such, it is permissible to pass fresh assessment order. 8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned assessment order at Annexure-T dated 13.12.2019 followed by a demand notice at Annexure-V dated 13.12.2019 in order to point out that the said order clearly discloses that it was a final assessment order and not draft assessment order as sought to be contended by the respondents. It is submitted that upon passing of the final assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me as a final assessment order and not draft assessment order as sought to be contended by the respondents. Though the 1st respondent purports to have issued corrigendum informing the petitioner that the earlier assessment order dated 13.12.2019 shall be treated as draft assessment order, the said contention cannot be accepted in view of the demand raised by the respondents immediately upon passing the earlier assessment order. 12. In fact, in Google Ireland's case supra, it was held that after issuing the final assessment order and demand notice, it was not permissible for the respondent-revenue to circumvent the same and issue a corrigendum informing the petitioner to treat the said final assessment order as the draft assessment or....