9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objections before the expiry of the time limit for filing objections. As regards the obligation to submit a copy of such objections to the AO, an e-mail of 30.10.2023 is on record. In the said e-mail, the petitioner asserts that objections were filed before the DRP and that a copy of such objections could not be placed before the AO through the e-filing facility because such facility was not available. The objections were also attached to the e-mail. It appears that the AO has proceeded to issue the assessment order on account of being unaware that objections were submitted before the DRP. Consequently, the petitioner's total income has been determined in a sum of Rs. 97,50,98,539/- against the income of Rs. 54,36,39,810/- as per the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Income Tax Department asserting that objections were filed before the DRP and that the same could not be e-filed because the e-filing facility was closed. In the above facts and circumstances, the assessment order dated 24.11.2023 was issued. In the said order, it is recorded that the petitioner did not file objections before the DRP and that, therefore, it was concluded that the petitioner has no objection to the draft assessment order. The present writ petition was filed in the above facts and circumstances. 3. By drawing reference to the objections filed before the DRP on 27.10.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the undisputed position is that the authority vested with the power of deciding on the objections r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-filing facility because such facility was not available. The objections were also attached to the e-mail. 6. In the facts and circumstances set out above, it appears that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to issue the assessment order on account of being unaware that objections were submitted before the DRP. Consequently, the petitioner's total income has been determined in a sum of Rs. 97,50,98,539/- against the income of Rs. 54,36,39,810/- as per the petitioner's return. The conclusion that follows is that the petitioner is put to considerable prejudice without its objections being considered by the DRP. On this limited ground, the impugned assessment order dated 24.11.2023 is quashed. 7. As a consequence, the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
