TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ST/M/147/2024-25/1072927250(1) by the Respondent 1 for the assessment year 2016-17 (ANNEXURE-'J'); c) Issue a writ of prohibition or a direction in the nature of writ of prohibition restraining the Respondent-1 from proceedings further in the matter of recovery in pursuance of the impugned assessment order along with demand notice dt.31.01.2025 bearing No. ITBA/AST/M/147/2024-25/1072927250(1) (ANNEXURE-J); d) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent-1 to consider the submission of the petitioner as the same is filed within the stipulated time limit. e) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent -3 to clarify and to pass the justification order in order to assume the jurisdiction of the petitioner; f) Pass such other order, direction or writ as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, and g) Direct the respondents to award the costs of this writ petition." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r was beyond the prescribed period of 30 days. However, as noticed above, the Draft Assessment Order was issued on 16.03.2024 and communicated to the petitioner on 18.03.2024 and in the light of the undisputed fact that the petitioner had filed objections on 14.04.2024 and was received by the respondents on 16.04.2024 within the prescribed period of 30 days, the DRP clearly fell in error in rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner on the erroneous premise that the same had been filed beyond the prescribed period of 30 days, which is contrary to the material on record. 7. In INFRRD Private Limited's case supra, this Court has held as under: "In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "The Petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction: (a) quashing the order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure-'D') bearing DIN ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2024-25/1074765838(1) issued by the 1st Respondent for the assessment year 2022-23; (b) quashing the notice dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure-'E') bearing DIN ITBA/AST/S/156/2024-25/1074765947(1) issued by the 1st Respondent for the assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judgments: (i) LG Soft India (P) Ltd., Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/Income-tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi reported in (2022) 140 taxmann.com 174 (Karnataka); and. (ii) Open Silicon Research (P) Ltd., Vs Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, New Delhi reported in (2023) 154 taxmann.com.11 (Karnataka.). 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. under: 6. In LG Soft India (P) Ltd. (supra), this Court held as "In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of impugned final assessment order at Annexure-A dated 30.04.2021, demand notice at Annexure-B dated 30.04.2021 and notice at Annexure-C dated 30.04.2021 and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the mandatory provisions of Section 144....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner pursuant to which the Assessing Officer is to be directed to pass appropriate orders as provided under Section 144C of the IT Act. 5. It is further contended that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioner addressed communications dated 04.05.2021, 07.05.2021 and 11.05.2021 to the respondents calling upon them to keep the impugned Assessment Order and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in abeyance till conclusion of the proceedings before the DRP; however, the respondents did no respond to the said requests of the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the undisputed material on record clearly indicates that in response to the draft Assessment Order dated 29.03.2021 issued to the petitioner, petitioner submitted objections before the DRP on 26.04.2021, within the prescribed period and intimated the same to the Assessing Officer on 30.04.2021; the explanation offered by the petitioner as regards h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Petitioner submits that he is an eligible assessee in terms of Section 144C (15)(b)(i) and that in response to the draft order, objections were filed in terms of Section 144C (2)(b) before the Dispute Resolution Panel (fort short 'DRP'), as is evident from Annexure-H. Annexure-H is the acknowledgment for having filed objections to the draft assessment order before the DRP. It is admitted however that copy of the said objections were not filed before the Assessing Officer in terms of Section 144C(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, which was however is a bona fide lapse on the part of the assessee. Petitioner submits that in the meanwhile, the Assessing Officer has proceeded to pass an assessment order which has been assailed and copy of which is produced at Annexure-A1. The said order, it is stated was passed on 26.10.2022. 3. It is submitted that subsequently, the DRP has issued directions to the Assessing Officer as per Annexure-N on 15.05.2023. It is submitted that though directions were issued by the DRP at a subsequent point of time, in light of the obligation under Section 144C (13), the assessment order will have to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er passing of the assessment order on 26.10.2022, question as to whether non-filing of objections before the assessing officer will have the effect of assessing officer being empowered to go ahead and conclude the proceedings when in fact the petitioner had filed objections before the DRP and had not intimated the same to the assessing officer, requires consideration. 9. The scheme at Section 144C is clear and would envisage the procedure as follows: (a) On receipt of the draft order, the assessee within thirty days may file his acceptance of the variations to the Assessing Officer; or (b) In the event he disagrees with such variations, he has to file his objections to such variations with the Dispute Resolution Panel and the Assessing Officer. 10. Once such objections have been filed, the DRP in terms of Section 144C (5) may issue directions for guidance of the assessing officer to enable him to complete the assessment. The power of the DRP is provided for under Sections 144C (6) to 144C (10) of the Act. After the DRP exercises power vested under Section 144C as noticed above and directions are issued, the assessing officer has no discretion exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessing officer is to follow the directions issued by the DRP at Annexure-N. It is clarified that the observations made above are made in the context of directions being issued by the DRP at a subsequent point of time and will not have the effect of construing the duty to file objections before the assessing officer under Section 144C(2)(b)(ii) as being optional and not mandatory." 8. In the instant case, a perusal of the material on record would indicate that so long as the petitioner had filed its objection before DRP, albeit not intimated due to glitches in the website/portal respondent No. 1 ought to have awaited the outcome of DRP proceedings and could not have proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order, which deserves to be set aside and necessary directions ought to be issued to the DRP to conclude the proceedings by considering the objections in accordance with law. 9. In the result, pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned orders at Annexures-D, E and F are hereby quashed. (iii) Respondent No. 1 is directed to proceed further after conclusion of the proceedings before the D....