TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the Petitioner, the Assessment Order impugned in the present Petition dated 29th September 2021 pertaining to A.Y. 2007-08, is liable to be set aside on the basis of the judgments of this Court in regard to faceless assessments. 2. By consent, the Petition is taken up for hearing. 3. The Petitioner has challenged the Assessment Order dated 29th September 2021 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Respondent No. 2 under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, pertaining to the A.Y. 2007-08. 4. The Petitioner has submitted that an Assessment Order was passed in the case of the Petitioner on 31st December 2009 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act holding that the capit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not been considered in the Assessment Order. 7. The Petitioner has also indicated that it is incumbent upon the revenue to serve a draft Assessment Order on the Assessee if it seeks to modify the return income of the Assessee. The Petitioner has submitted that no such draft Assessment Order was ever served upon the Petitioner. 8. In support of the aforesaid proposition, the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 28th October 2021 passed in Golden Tobacco V/S NFAC [(2022) 442 ITR 204 (Bom)]. In the said judgment, this Court set aside the final Assessment Order since no draft Assessment Order was issued prior thereto. The Petitioner has also relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of New Globe Logistk LLP V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as passed. The Respondent has stated that the Revisional Authority has referred to various judgments to support the Assessment Order. The Respondent, relying upon the affidavit-in-reply, submits that the Assessment Order dated 29th September 2021 and the order passed by Revisional Authority dated 13th January 2023 and 21st January 2023 are in accordance with law. 12. The Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned Assessment Order has not considered any of the judgments cited by the Petitioner in support of his case and the Revisional Authority has also supported the impugned Assessment Order. The Petitioner has submitted that consideration by the Revisional Authority cannot assist the Revenue if the original Assessment O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... September 2021 passed by Respondent No. 2. We now remand the matter back to Respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order after de-novo consideration of all the submissions made by the Petitioner. 15. Prayer clause (c) of the Petition is not pressed by Mr. Dada, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 16. Considering that the Petitioner was made to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,02,21,990/- as a pre-condition for stay of the demand, and which amount was deposited on 2nd February 2022, we are of the view that this amount has to be refunded back to the Petitioner because the order passed by the Revisional Authority as well as the Assessment Order dated 29th September 2021 have now been quashed and set aside by us and the mat....