9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 809 - AT - Income TaxCondoned the delay of one day in filing the assessee s objection before the DRP - Held that - The Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s.Rain Cements Limited v. DCIT 2016 (9) TMI 601 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT had condoned the delay of one day in filing the assessee s objection before the DRP and directed the DRP to consider the issue on merits. Both the parties had requested us to give direction to condone the delay in filing the objections. In the interest of justice and equity and to avoid protracted litigation we condone the delay of one day in filing the assessee s objection before the DRP. Therefore the order of the DRP dated 05.08.2016 is set aside. The DRP is directed to take up Form No.35A filed by the assessee along with annexures and evidences for the consideration of the same on merits. The DRP shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties and shall comply with the procedure prescribed u/s 144C of the I.T.Act and shall pass direction as expediously as possible.
Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of final assessment order under section 144C(3) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Rejection of objections by Draft Resolution Panel (DRP) due to delay in filing. 3. Legal implications of condoning the delay in filing objections before DRP. 4. Dismissal of stay application by the Tribunal. Issue 1: Timeliness of Final Assessment Order: The appeal challenged the final assessment order dated 22.08.2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C read with section 92CA of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2012-2013. The counsel for the assessee contended that the final assessment order was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the prescribed time limit. The counsel argued that as per section 144C(4), the Assessing Officer must pass the final assessment order within one month from the end of the month in which the time limit for filing objections under section 144C(2) expires. Citing relevant tribunal orders, the counsel sought to quash the final assessment order due to the delay. Issue 2: Rejection of Objections by DRP: The Draft Resolution Panel (DRP) rejected the assessee's objections to the draft assessment order due to a one-day delay in filing, as per section 144C(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act. The DRP held that it lacked the power to condone the delay, leading to the rejection of the objections. This rejection by the DRP played a crucial role in the subsequent passing of the final assessment order incorporating the proposed additions from the draft assessment order. Issue 3: Legal Implications of Condoning Delay in Filing Objections: The counsel for the assessee, supported by the Departmental Representative, proposed an alternative submission based on the judgment of the High Court in a similar case. They sought a direction to condone the one-day delay in filing objections before the DRP and to consider the objections on merits. The Tribunal, considering the interests of justice and equity, agreed to condone the delay and set aside the DRP's order. The Tribunal directed the DRP to consider the objections on merits, providing both parties with a fair hearing and complying with the procedures under section 144C of the Income-tax Act. Issue 4: Dismissal of Stay Application: The Tribunal disposed of the appeal concerning the stay application, rendering it infructuous. Consequently, the stay application filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, while the stay application was dismissed as it was no longer relevant due to the disposal of the appeal. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the critical issues of timeliness of the final assessment order, rejection of objections by the DRP, legal implications of condoning the delay in filing objections, and the dismissal of the stay application by the Tribunal.
|
