9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 825 - HC - Income TaxAssessment u/s 144C - lapse in not filing the objections under Section 144C (2)(b)(ii) before the AO - HELD THAT - 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 u/s 144C (6) to 144C (10) of the Act. After the DRP exercises power vested u/s 144C as noticed above and directions are issued, the assessing officer has no discretion except to act in conformity with the directions. It is not in dispute that if no directions are issued, AO need not wait u/s 144C (13). However, the fact remains that once objections are filed before the DRP and till directions are issued, the assessing officer cannot proceed further. This is in light of mandate u/s 144C (13). Accordingly, non intimation to the assessing officer u/s 144C (2)(b)(ii) though is a lapse on the part of the petitioner, the only way of meaningfully and harmoniously interpreting the obligation of filing objections u/s 144C (2)(b)(ii) is to construe the procedure that once such objections are filed before the DRP and till the decision is taken by the DRP regarding directions to be passed, the assessing officer ought not to proceed further. This is the procedure to be followed. In the present case where objections no doubt have been filed before the DRP and directions passed though at a later point of time, in light of the manner of construing the procedure the assessing officer ought not to have proceeded and ought to have waited till directions were passed by the DRP, as the directions have though been subsequently passed on 15.05.2023. Accordingly, the assessment order is required to be set aside. In light of the above, the assessment order at Annexure-A1 is set aside. Consequently, the computation sheet at Annexure-A2 and the demand notice at Annexure-A3 are set aside. Insofar as the communication at Annexure-A4 is concerned, once the DRP issues directions, it is not concerned with the action of the Assessing Officer. The passing of directions by the DRP confirms right on the petitioner to have such directions adhered to and even otherwise, in terms of Section 144C(13), the assessing officer has no discretion. If that were to be so, the question of the DRP withdrawing its directions does not arise and accordingly, the communication at Annexure-A4 is set aside in terms of the above discussion. Petition is disposed off. The matter is restored to the stage of 144C(13) and the assessing officer shall proceed further in terms of the procedure under Section 144C(13) and the time contemplated under Section 144C(13) is deemed to commence from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by the assessing officer.The assessing officer is to follow the directions issued by the DRP at Annexure-N.
Issues involved:
The petitioner sought quashing of the assessment order, computation sheet, demand notice, and correspondence issued by the respondent. The petitioner also requested direction for the 1st respondent to follow the procedure under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Summary: The petitioner, an eligible assessee, filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) but failed to provide a copy to the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order, which the petitioner challenged. The DRP issued directions after the assessment order, leading to a dispute over the validity of the directions. The court acknowledged the lapse in not filing objections before the Assessing Officer but emphasized the importance of DRP directions in the assessment process. The court highlighted the procedural requirements under Section 144C, emphasizing the role of the DRP in issuing directions for the assessment. The court concluded that the assessment order should be set aside due to the DRP's directions, and the matter should proceed afresh in accordance with Section 144C. The communication declaring the DRP's directions as infructuous was also set aside, emphasizing the authority of the DRP in issuing directions. The court directed the assessing officer to follow the DRP's directions and clarified that the obligation to file objections before the assessing officer is mandatory, not optional. The petition was disposed of, restoring the matter to the stage of Section 144C(13) for further proceedings by the assessing officer.
|
