9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the Petitioners and Ms Amira Razaq, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 2. 2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioners challenge the impugned final assessment order dated 08.11.2023 and the impugned demand notice dated 08.11.2023 on the ground that the impugned order and the impugned demand notice could not have been made without the issue of a draft assessment order as required under Section 144C (1) of the IT Act. 4. Mr Desai, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the impugned assessment order and the consequential demand notice were issued without complying with the provisions of Section 144C of the IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... com 421 (SC), Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Vs ACIP(2021) 129 Taxmann. com 18 (Bombay), Kottex Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs NEFAC (2022) 145 Taxmann 170 (Gujarat) follows Parimal Enterprises, Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs NFAC, Delhi (2023) 146 Taxmann. com 511 (Delhi) and Faqir Chand Vs NEFAC, Delhi (2021) 130 Taxmann.com 323 (Delhi) to support her contentions. 8. Accordingly, Ms Razaq submitted that the impugned order and notice dated 08.11.2023 could be set aside, but the matter should be remanded to the Department to take corrective measures and pass fresh orders in accordance with law in the time frame that this Court could fix. In short, she submitted that the course adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mantra Industries Ltd., (sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). She submitted that after quashing the impugned assessment order and notice, the matter should be remanded to the Assessment Officer/ Department to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law after following the due procedure prescribed under the IT Act. 15. The entire basis of Mr Desai's contention that the matter should end here was the decision of this Court (Bombay High Court) in Mantra Industries Ltd. Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre (supra). However, the Department carried this matter in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This appeal was partly allowed. The impugned assessment order, which was made in breach of the procedure prescribed under the IT Act, was set aside. However, the matter was remanded to the Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. All the contentions/defences which are available to the assessee on merits are kept open to be considered by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law and on its own merits." 17. Mr Desai, however, contended that the above course of action was followed in the context of provisions of Section 144B of the IT Act, and in the present case, we are concerned with Section 144C of the IT Act. He further submitted that this Court (Bombay High Court) did not follow the above approach in the case of M/s CWT India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which was rendered after the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Mantra Industries Ltd. (supra). 18. None of the above contentions appeals to us. Firstly, even though we may be concerned with the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
