2026 (4) TMI 1790

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 18.12.2025 alleging it to be contrary to the direction given by the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as 'DRP') vide its order dated 29.11.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention towards the DRP's order dated 29.11.2025 and pointed out that while deciding the issue of addition under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') the DRP had issued clear directions that in case the Department has not preferred any appeal against the orders of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer (AO) shall not make any addition. 3. Learned counsel argued that in spite of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xpress direction for not creating any demand, unless an appeal against the above-referred order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the Tribunal is filed in the High Court, yet the AO has wrongly mentioned in assessment order that the appeal against the above-referred order of the Tribunal is pending in the Delhi High Court. 4. He raised a grievance that due to incorrect assertion of fact, the AO has proceeded to raise a huge demand of tax against the petitioner to the tune of Rs.75,75,24,930/- and submitted that if this Court does not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner's right would be severely affected. 5. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned Senior Standing Counsel is directed to fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any adverse observations against the AO, as he might have bonafidely proceeded because as a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), he might not have the entire record, which a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is supposed to have. 9. But in any case, the addition of Rs. 160,43,40,589/- under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act of 1961 cannot be sustained, as the same is in teeth of the direction of DRP which are mandatory as per Section 144A of the Act of 1961. Accordingly, we set aside the assessment order dated 18.12.2025 to the extent of demand including interest amounting to Rs. 160,43,40,589/-. The petitioner is relegated to prefer an appeal against the remaining addition (if so desired) in accordance with law. 10. Though we could have r....