9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IP as well. 3. These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution take exception to the final assessment order dated 30.08.2022 (first assessment order) issued without DIN. In addition, the final assessment order dated 01.09.2022 is also called in question on the singular ground that both the orders are barred by limitation. 4. In W.P.No.44915 of 2022, the assessment year is 2018-19, whereas in W.P.No.44891 of 2022, the assessment year is 2019-20. 5. The petitioner filed its revised income tax return for Assessment Year 2018-2019 on 31.03.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment. Accordingly, a notice dated 22.09.2019 was issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Income Tax Act) followed by certain more notices and questionnaires issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has filed acknowledgment of return of income for Assessment Years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 (Annexure P-1). It is pleaded that the petitioner, by different responses mentioned in paragraph No.8 of Writ affidavit pursuant to aforesaid notices, submitted all the necessary information along with the relevant documents to respondent No.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Income Tax W. P.(C).15381 of 2022, dated 30.01.2024, Bombay High Court Judgment in Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Central Processing Centre [2023] taxmann.com 258 (Bombay) and Madras High Court judgment in Taeyang Metal India (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax [2024] 160 taxmann.com 536 (Madras). In addition, she placed reliance on Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (I.T.Act) and the E-Assessment Scheme, 2019 (Scheme) (Annexure P-25). The singular contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the originator/sender of DRP has uploaded its order on the portal, the originator has lost control over it and it is uploaded on the same day on the portal. Thus, as per aforesaid statutory provision, scheme and above judgments of three High Courts, it shall be presumed that the assessing officer came to know about the order of DRP on 30.06.2022 itself. Thus, as per Sub-Section 13 of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, he could have passed the assessment order by 31.07.2022. The order passed beyond that period is illegal and unsustainable. Contention of Revenue: 11. Sri Vijhay K Punna, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue, submits that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meed (2022) 1 SCC 12 in C.A.No.6204 of 2021 dated 07.10.2021 wherein the Supreme Court explained as to what is 'receipt' and what is 'made' as per the provisions of the Act. The provisions of the Act reads that upon 'receipt' of the directions issued under sub section (5)..., the assessment has to be completed within one month from the end of the month in which such directions is 'received'. 12. Lastly, Sri Vijhay K Punna placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Faceless Assessment Centre (supra), which is followed in other judgments. He also placed reliance on judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (supra) to bolster the submission that language of the statute should be given effect to and when plain language leads to only one conclusion, there is no reason to deviate from such meaning. FINDINGS: 13. Before dealing with rival contentions, it is apposite to consider Sections 144C(13) and 282(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and Section 13 of the I.T. Act which reads thus: "Section 144C: Reference to dispute resolution panel:- (1) to (12)... (13) Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g an authenticated copy on the assessee's Mobile App; and followed by a real time alert. (2) and (3) xxx (4) The time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic record shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000)." (Emphasis Supplied) 15. The Delhi High Court in Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited (supra) held as under: "15. In terms of sub-section (13) of Section 144C of the Act, the AO is mandated to complete the assessment ―in conformity with the directions as framed by the DRP. That very provision commands the AO to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which such a direction is received. 17. As is manifest from a reading of sub-section (13) of Section 144C of the Act, the AO is not accorded any discretion in the framing of an order of assessment once directions have come to be framed by the DRP. In fact, the provision requires the AO to frame an order of assessment in conformity with those directions and without providing any further opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This principle of law has been affirmed by the Bombay High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act would be liable to be computed bearing that crucial date in mind. Once the aforesaid position becomes clear, it is evident that the order of assessment, if at all could have been framed lastly by 31 July 2022. There has thus been an abject failure on the part of the first respondent to comply with the mandatory timelines as incorporated in the aforenoted provisions. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned order of assessment and the consequential penalty proceedings are thus liable to be set aside on this short score alone." (Emphasis Supplied) 16. The Bombay High Court in Vodafone Idea Ltd. (supra) opened as under: "15. Annexed to the affidavit of Mr. Satish Sharma is a screenshot of the CHN-Case History Notings of the Dispute Resolution Panel proceedings uploaded on the Income-tax Business Application portal. The screenshot is of the page as it appears on the Income-tax Business Application portal. A perusal of the screenshot of Case History Notings of the Dispute Resolution Panel read with the affidavit filed by Mr. Satish Sharma, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and Ms. Anne Varghese, the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, clearly in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of section 144C as mandated by the statute are not strictly adhered to the entire object of providing for an alternate redressal mechanism in the form of Dispute Resolution Panel stand defeated. That is not the intention of the Legislature when the provision was introduced in the Act. Section 144C(10) of the Act provide that the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel are binding on the Assessing Officer. By failing to pass any order in terms of the provision, the Assessing Officer cannot be permitted to defeat the entire exercise and render the same futile. When a statute prescribes the power to do a certain thing in a certain way, then the thing must be done in that way and other methods of performance are forbidden. Once the statute has prescribed a limitation period for passing the final order, it is expected that the internal procedure of the Department should mould itself to give meaning to and act in aid of the provision. Any procedural defect (there is none in this case) in the internal mechanism of the working of E-assessment Scheme, cannot operate against the interest of the assessee. Hence, the Faceless Assessing Officer cannot be believed that the Dispute Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served that faceless assessment scheme came into being recently and therefore, the revenue ought to have been given some leverage to correct themselves and take corrective measures. The said observation of the Supreme Court is related to the faceless regime and cannot be stretched and made applicable in this case. This is trite that the precedential value of a judgment relates to the point which has been actually decided and not what is logically flowing from it (see Dr. (Mrs.) Chanchal Goyal v. State of Rajasthan 2003 (3) SCC 485). It is equally settled that a singular different fact or point may change the precedential value of a judgment (see Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111). 22. So far, the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (supra) is concerned on which reliance is placed by Sri Vijhay K Punna, it is profitable to note that in the said case, the Supreme Court considered Section 263(2) of the Income Tax Act, in the said Section the word used is 'made' and not 'receipt of the order'. The Supreme Court emphasized the cardinal principle of the law that provision of statute is to be read as it is and nothing is to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rce means computer, computer system, computer network, data, computer data base or software;" 27. In the instant case, parties have taken a diametrically opposite view on the aspect whether the directions uploaded on the portal on 30.06.2022 can be treated to be 'receipt' on the part of the assessing officer. Sri Vijhay K Punna, learned Standing Counsel for revenue contends that 'receipt' will be the date when the e-mail was received by the revenue containing the DRP directions i.e., on 05.07.2020. 28. As per the view taken by the aforesaid three High Courts there is no doubt that when the originator/DRP sends its directions in computer resource outside its control, it amounts to 'despatch' and similarly, 'receipt' takes place when said electronic record enters the computer resource. 29. Section 282 of the Income Tax Act on which reliance was placed by Sri Vijhay K Punna, learned Standing Counsel for revenue makes it clear that in Sub-Section 1(c) of Section 282, the communication through electronic record as per Chapter IV of the I.T.Act was recognized and treated to be service of notice generally. Chapter IV of the I.T.Act contains Section 13, which envisages time, place of 'd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
