Inventive Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors

1/3 423-aswp-6122-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6122 OF 2024 Inventive Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner VersusAssessment Unit Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Mihir C. Naniwadekar, with Ms. Rucha Vaidya & Mr. Rururaj H. Gurjar, for Petitioner.Mr. Arjun Gupta, for Respondents/Revenue. CORAM:K. R. SHRIRAM &DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.DATED:29[th] April 2024 PC:- 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties,taken up for final hearing. 2.Petitioner is impugning the assessment order dated 28[th]February 2024 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 143(3) readwith Section 144C(3) read with 144B of the Income Tax act, 1961(“the Act”) along with consequential notice of demand under Section156 of the Act and penalty notice under Section 270A of the Act. 3.Petitioner’s case is that Section 144C(2) of the Act, inter alia,requires Assessee, should he to choose to file reference before theDispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to file such objection within 30 daysfrom the receipt of Draft Assessment Order. The section also requiresGaikwad RD Assessee to file a copy of the reference with the Assessing Officer(“AO”) within the time limit prescribed. Section 144C(4) of the Actrequires AO to pass a final order within one month from the end ofthe month in which the period of filing of objections before DRP andAO expires. 4.According to Petitioner, though Section 144C of the Actrequires Petitioner to communicate the objection filed before the DRPto the AO, due to oversight/inadvertence Petitioner did not informthe AO within 30 days period prescribed under Sub-section (2) ofSection 144C of the Act that it had filed objection dated 23[rd] January2024 with the DRP. The 30 days period expired on 23[rd] January2024, whereas Petitioner communicated about filing of the objectionwith DRP only on 9[th] February 2024. Since the objection was notintimated to the AO within the 30 days period prescribed, the AOproceeded to pass the assessment order dated 28[th] February 2024notwithstanding the objection filed by Petitioner with the DRP. 5.In our view, since Petitioner had already filed a referenceraising its objections to the DRP within the 30 days period andSection 144C(4) of the Act requires the AO to pass a final orderincluding the view expressed by the DRP, we set aside the order dated28[th] February 2024 of the AO impugned in this petition. We findsupport for this view in Sulzer Pumps India Pvt. Ltd. v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2) & Ors.[1]We shall also observe that the AO cannot be faulted for passing the impugned order. At the same time, the AO will also have the benefits ofconsidering the views of the DRP while passing a fresh assessment order. 6.Accordingly, Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a),which reads as under: “(a)Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature ofCertiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directionunder Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Indiaquashing the Impugned Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C dated28 February 2024 (Exhibit G), Impugned Demand Notice u/s156 dated 28 February 2024 (Exhibit H) and ImpugnedPenalty notice u/s 270A dated 28 February 2024 (Exhibit I)passed by Respondent No.1;” 7.The AO shall take further steps in the matter after the DRP passes its order on the objection filed by Petitioner, in accordancewith law. 8.Petition disposed. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)