9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is mandatory requirement that gave substantive right to the assessee to object to any variation, that is prejudicial to the assessee. Depriving petitioner of this valuable right to raise objection before DRP would be denial of substantive right to the assessee. As held in SHL (India) Private Limited ( 2021 (7) TMI 1208 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] failure to follow the procedure under Section 144C(1) of the Act would be a jurisdictional error and not merely procedural error or a mere irregularity. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has assumed jurisdiction to straight away pass the final order without following the mandatory procedure prescribed u/s 144C. - K.R. SHRIRAM AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. Mr. J.D. Mistri, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Madhur Agrawa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prejudicial to it. In this case, the order under Section 92CA (3) of the IT Act, proposed to make an adjustment of Rs.107,454,337/- to the arm s length price considered as Nil by Petitioner and to that extent the said adjustment was evidently prejudicial to the interest of Petitioner. Depriving Petitioner of this valuable right to raise objection before DRP would be denial of substantive rights to the assessee, for which, in our view, the Assessing Officer has no power under the statute, as the provision clearly mandates the Assessing Officer to pass and furnish a draft Assessment Order in the first instance in such a case. The legislature, in our view, has intended to give an important opportunity to Petitioner, who is an eligible assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such right available to Petitioner in this case. In fact, Petitioner has lost a substantive right due to the failure of the Respondents to pass and forward a draft assessment order in the first instance on a variance, prejudicial to the interest of Petitioner. In our view, this is clearly a case of jurisdictional error. The final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer stands vitiated on account of lack of jurisdiction, which is incurable and deserves to be set aside as void ab initio. 2. Therefore, argument of Mr. Suresh Kumar that failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure under Section 144C(1) is merely a procedural or inadvertent error cannot be accepted. The requirement under Section 144C(1) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
