9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this case, are comparable in Sulzer Pumps India Private Limited [2021 (12) TMI 891 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after recording that the assessing officer was not at fault still, granted the assessee in the same matter an additional opportunity since factually, objections had been filed with DRP, and such objections were pending. The relief in Sulzer Pumps (supra) was granted based on facts like those in the present case. Therefore, it is not as if the Sulzer Pumps (supra) or this order is a precedent for exercising discretion in every matter of this nature, irrespective of the factual position. At the same time, we also agree that the assessing officer who made the impugned assessment order in this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29 March 2024. On 29 March 2024, the first Respondent passed a draft order in terms of Section 144C (1) of the Act. 6. The Petitioner lodged her objections to the draft order on 24 April 2024. However, the Petitioner inadvertently failed to inform the assessing officer about the objections being filed before the DRP and the pendency of such objections before the DRP. As a result, the first Respondent made the impugned final assessment order dated 28 May 2024. Based on this impugned assessment order, notices under Sections 156, 270A and 274 were also issued to the Petitioner. 7. Mr K Gopal the learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly admitted that there was an omission on the part of the Petitioner in forming the first Respondent about th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objections had been filed with DRP, and such objections were pending. The relief in Sulzer Pumps (supra) was granted based on facts like those in the present case. Therefore, it is not as if the Sulzer Pumps (supra) or this order is a precedent for exercising discretion in every matter of this nature, irrespective of the factual position. 11. The facts in Undercarriage and Tractor Parts (supra) were significantly different and not comparable to the present matter. There, apart from the failure to inform the assessing officer about the pendency of objections before the DRP, the assessee challenged the assessing officer's final assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). While this Appeal was pending, the DRP, issued th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
