Wp/10372/2024 Of Gc India Dental Private Limited v. Additional/Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income-Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT I{YDERABAD(Special Originf l Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCHTWO THOUSAND AIID TWENTY FIVE PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI .,USTICE P.SAM KOSHYANbTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSNCd NARSTNG RAO NANDIKONDA RIT PETITION N: 10372 OF 2024 Between: GC lndia Dental Private Limited, Plotlno. 233, phase lll, lOA, pashamaitaram(Vl 502307. ^P^atancheru [(M). ][tDA, Pashamailpram, Medak, Sangareddy, ][TeijngJni ][-] ...pETrroNER AND 1. Additional/JoinV Deputy/ Assistant C{mmissioner of lncome Taxl lncome{axOfficer, National Faceless Assessment Centre Assessment Unit, Room No-401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 1000j.Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre Assessment Unit, Room No-401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 1000j.2. Deputy Commissioner of lncome tax, pircle -2(1), Signature Towers, OppositeBotanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderdbad, tetbriqanl-SOOOga.Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderdbad, tetbriqanl-SOOOga.3. Principal Commissioner of lncbme Tax -2, Sgnature iowers, OppositeBotanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderdbad, TelangSna-500084.Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderdbad, TelangSna-500084. ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Ccinstitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit file( therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a writ particularly in the n{trr" or certiorari or order or direction- [a)Quashing ][the ][assessment ]order dated Z2l12tZO23 bearing no.ITBtuAST/S/1 4 3(3)t2023-24t 1 058999050( 1 I issued by the 1 st Respondenr u nderSection 1 43(3) read with Section 144C(3 j read with Section 1448 of the Act- [a)Quashing ][the ][assessment ]order dated Z2l12tZO23 bearing no.ITBtuAST/S/1 4 3(3)t2023-24t 1 058999050( 1 I issued by the 1 st Respondenr u nderSection 1 43(3) read with Section 144C(3 j read with Section 1448 of the Act(Annexure P-5); and b).Quashing the dembnd notice dated 2211212023 beadngno. ITBtuAST/S 115612023-24t10589991 14( 1) issued by the 1st Respondent under,lSection ['156 ]of the Act (Annexure P-6); c) Quashing the notice dated 2211212023no. ITBtuAST/S 115612023-24t10589991 14( 1) issued by the 1st Respondent under,lSection ['156 ]of the Act (Annexure P-6); c) Quashing the notice dated 2211212023bearing no. ITBtuPNL/S/27ON2023-24t1p58999166(1) issued by the tstRespondent under Section 274 read with tection 2tOA oi the Act (Annexure p-7)d) Quashing of the notice dated OA.O3.2OZ4 bearing no.7)d) Quashing of the notice dated OA.O3.2OZ4 bearing no.ITBA/PNL/F/270N2O23-2411062234167(1) ipsued by the 1.t Respondent under Section 270,4 of the Act (Annexure p-9) e) Quashing of the directions dated3O.O8.2O24 passed by the 4th Respondent under Section 144C(5) of the Actbearing No. F.No. 263/DRp -1lBNGt2O23-24 (Annexure p-10) for the assessmentyea( 2021-22 (Prayer is amended as per Court Order dated 10.03.2025 vide lA No. 5 of2024 , in WP No. 10372 ot 20241lA NO: 2 OF 20242024 , in WP No. 10372 ot 20241lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to staythe operation of the final assessment order dated 22112t2O23 bearing no.lrBA/AST/S/143(3)12023-2411058999050(1) passed by lhe 1st Respondent underSection 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) read with Section 1 448 of the Act(Annexure P-5) and the consequentiar notice of demand dated 22r12t2o23bearing no. ITBtuAST/S/15612O23-24t10589991 14(1) issued by rhe 1stRespondent under Section 156 of the Act (Annexure p-6), the notice dated2211212023 bearing no |TBA/PNU5/270 N2O23-2411O58999166( 1) issued by the1st Respondent under Section 214 rcad with Section 2loA of the Act (AnnexureP-7), and the notrce dated 08/03/2024 bearing no. lTBtupNL/F|27ON2O23_2411062234167 ( 1 ) issued by the 1st Respondent under section 2z0A of the Act(Annexure P-9) lA NO: 4 OF 2024 lA NO: 4 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC and Rule 16 (A) of the writ proceedingsRules praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe petition, the High court may be preased to bring on record the following partyas respondent No.4 in the interests of justice and equity. proposed Respondentas respondent No.4 in the interests of justice and equity. proposed RespondentNo.4. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru, Kendriya Sadan, 4th Floor, C Wing,Bengaluru 560 034.- Bengaluru 560 034.- I lA NO: 6 OF 2024 Petition under Section l5l cPc praying that in the circumstances stated rnthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to staythe operation of all proceedings pursuant to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru dated 30-08-2024 [pending ]disposal of the [present]writ petition in the interests of justice and equity.lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: 1. AdditionaUJoinV Deputy/ Assistant Cofnmissioner of lncome Tax/ lncome{axOfficer, National Faceless Assessmefit Centre Assessment Unit, Room No.Officer, National Faceless Assessmefit Centre Assessment Unit, Room No.2. Deputy 401 , 2nd Commissioner of Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal lncome tax, Ni.'hru Circle Stadium, -2(1), Signature Delhi-1 ['10003.]Towers, OppositeBotanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad, Telangana-500084.Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad, Telangana-500084. 3. Principal Commissioner of lncome lTax [-2, ]Signature Towers, OppositeBotanical Gardens, Kondapur, HyderaQad, Telangana-500084.Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, HyderaQad, Telangana-500084. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND cC lndia Dental Private Limited, Plotno.233, Phase lll, lDA, Pashamailaram(V), Patancheru (M). lDA, Pashamailm, Medak, Sangareddy, Telangana [-]502307.t"...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER(V), Patancheru (M). lDA, Pashamailm, Medak, Sangareddy, Telangana [-]502307.t"...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 CPC prayjng that in the circumstances [stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the petition, fie High Court may be [pleased to ][this]Hon'ble Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order [granted ]on 22-04-2024in W.P.No.10372 of 2024 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. SURYA NARAYANA SENIOR Ms. K. SRIILATHA RALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.10372 of 2024 gBDEB: (per tr, e Hon'ble Sri tustice P.Sam Koshy) The present writ petition has been filed seeking [quashment ]oF the assessment order dated 22.12.2023 issued by respondent No.1under Section 1a3(3) read with Section l44C(3) also read [with]Section 7448 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly'the Act'hereinafter). The challenge is also the consequent demand notice ofthe same date i.e. 22.12.2023 issued by respondent No.1 underSection 156 of the Act and also the notice issued under Section 274read with Section 270A of the Act dated 22.12.2023. The challengeis also to the further notice dated 08.03.2024 issued by respondentNo.1 under Section 27OA of the Act. 2. Heard Mr. T. Surya Narayana, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. K. Sri Latha, learned counsel for the petitioner,and Mr. P. Murali Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for Income Taxappearing on behalf of the respondents. t\,--*.1-- 3. the assessment order dated 22.12.2023 issued by respondent No.1under Section 1a3(3) read with Section l44C(3) also read [with]Section 7448 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly'the Act'hereinafter). The challenge is also the consequent demand notice ofthe same date i.e. 22.12.2023 issued by respondent No.1 underSection 156 of the Act and also the notice issued under Section 274read with Section 270A of the Act dated 22.12.2023. The challengeis also to the further notice dated 08.03.2024 issued by respondentNo.1 under Section 27OA of the Act. 2. Heard Mr. T. Surya Narayana, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. K. Sri Latha, learned counsel for the petitioner,and Mr. P. Murali Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for Income Taxappearing on behalf of the respondents. t\,--*.1-- 3. 3. The brief facts which led to filirlg of the instant writ petition arethat in terms of the provisions undqr Section 144C(1) of the Act, adraft assessment order was pasFed by respondent No.1 onL6.17.2023. In terms of the provisions of Section l44C(2), onreceipt of the draft assessment ord(r, the assessee if he wants so,within thirty days file his objectlons with the Dispute ResolutionPanel (for short, the 'DRP') and tq the Assessing Officer. In theinstant case, the petitioneravang the said recourse, filed anobjection dated 12.12.2023 (AnnexLttre - P3) within the prescribedthirty days time. The filing of the same stands established from theacknowledgement received from thE ['Department ]on 74.12.2023,which again is well within the prescriped time. On the same day, i.e.on 12.12.2023 itself the objection filled under Section 144C(2) wasinformed to the Assessing Officer af well. The petitioner has beenable to show proof of the same of having been informed to theAssessing Officer from the acknov{ledgement of the objectionshaving successfully submitted online. The Department also gave antransaction ID to theacknowledg(ment,which establishes thereceipt of the objections by the Asseqsing Officer. The screenshot ofthe said acknowledgement is alsoenclosedalong with the writpetition. However, without considerinP the said objechor+eo filed by the petitioner, the Assessing Officer in contravention to therequirement under Sub-Sections (5) and (6) of Section t44C(2),proceeded and passed the final order dated 22,12.2023. At thestage of admission of the writ petition, vide order dared 22.04.2024,interim protection was granted by this Court which is still in force. 4. It is this passing of the final order assessment order being tn violation of the provisions of Section l44C of the Act; the instantwrit petition has been filed. 5. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to Sub-Sections(2), (3), (5) and (6) of Section l44C of the Act. The said Sub-Sections reads thus: "Reference to dispute resolution panel. L44C, (2) On receipt oF the draft order, the eligible assesseeshall, within thirty days of the receipt by him oF the draft-order, (a) filehis acceptanceof the variations to the AssessingOffice r;or (b) file his objections, if any, to such variation with,- (i) the Dispute Resolution Panel; and L ( ii) the Assessing Officer. (3) The Assessing Officer sh;tll complete the assessrnent onthe basis of the draft order, if- (a) the assessee intimates to the Assessing Officer theacceptance of the variation; or (b) no objections are received [within the ][period ][specified]in sub-section (2). (5) The Dispute Resolution [Panel ]shall, [in ][a ][case ][where ][any]is received under [sub-section ][(2), ][issue ][such]objection directions, as it thinks [fit, ][for the ][guidance ][of ][the ][Assessing]Oiiicer [o enable him to [complete ][the ][assessment,] (6) The Dispute Resolution [Panel ][shall ][issue ][the ][directions]referred to in sub-section [(5), ][aftef ][considering ][the ][following,]namely:- (a) draft order; (b) objections filed by the assessee; (c) evidence furnished by the [asselsee;] (d) report, if any, of the [Assessing ][Officer, Valuation ][officer ][or]iransfer Prrcing Officer [or ][any ][other authority;] (b) no objections are received [within the ][period ][specified]in sub-section (2). (5) The Dispute Resolution [Panel ]shall, [in ][a ][case ][where ][any]is received under [sub-section ][(2), ][issue ][such]objection directions, as it thinks [fit, ][for the ][guidance ][of ][the ][Assessing]Oiiicer [o enable him to [complete ][the ][assessment,] (6) The Dispute Resolution [Panel ][shall ][issue ][the ][directions]referred to in sub-section [(5), ][aftef ][considering ][the ][following,]namely:- (a) draft order; (b) objections filed by the assessee; (c) evidence furnished by the [asselsee;] (d) report, if any, of the [Assessing ][Officer, Valuation ][officer ][or]iransfer Prrcing Officer [or ][any ][other authority;] (e) records relatlng to the [draft ][or(er;] (f) evidence collected by, [or ][cause4 ][to ][be collected ][by, ][iU]and(g) result of any enquiry [made ][byi ][or ][caused ][to ][be ][made ][by,]it." A plain reading of [the aforementioned provisions under ][Section] l44C of the Act [would make ][it ][amP11{][ clear ][that ][as soon as ][the ][draft]assessment order [is][ passed, ][the ][as$][essee ][gets ][a][ right ][of ][filing ][his]within [thirty ][days which ][i11][ the ][instant ][case ][the ][Petitioner]objections did comply with. [Upon receipt ][of ][the ][objections, ][the ] [has ][to]consider the objections. [and thereaf[er ][pass ][approPriate orders ][by]either confirmlng [the ][draft ][assessmelt ][order, ][reducing ][or ][enhancing]theVariationsproposedinthedraftassessmentorder,andonly - thereafter, can the Assessing Officer pass the assessment order andnot otherwise. 6. In the instant case, though the stand of the Department is thatthe petitioner has not submitted any objection under Sectionl44C(2) to the Assessing Officer, therefore the Assessing Officerwas not aware of the filing of such objection before the DRp. Hence,the assessment order was proper, legal and justified, and thepetitioner should now challenge the same by way of an appeal.However, during the course of hearing, upon putting a query to thelearned Standing Counsel as regards the acknowledgement receivedby the Department in the objection filed by the petitioner underSection l44C(2) and the screenshot showing successful submissionof the objection to Assessing Officer has not been controverted,which would force this Bench to draw an inference that it was allwithin the knowledge of the Department when they had passed theassessment order dated 22.12.2023. 7. A plain reading of Sub-Sections (5) and (6) reproduced in thepreceding paragraphs, would give a clear indication that uponreceipt of an objection under Section l44c(2)(b) within a period ofthirty days from the date of passing of the draft assessment order, I eage 8 [of ]i,z it is incumbent upon the DRP to P4[oceed]and decide the same inaccordance with law and also in [accqrdance ][with ]other [Sub-Sections]stipulated under Section Ma(C) of [tl-le ][Act. ][The ][provisions ][of ][Section]t44(C) also indicates that it is only after [the ] [takes ][a ][decision]on the objections so filed by the [assfssee, ][the ][Assessing ][Officer ][can]proceed and pass the final assessment order. 8. In the [present ]case, the [filing]of the objections with the with information being forwarded [t]pthe Assesslng Offlcer standsestablished from the cogent [proof ][aqd materials ][enclosed ][along ][with]the writ petition. In the [absence]of the DRP not deciding [the]objections in accordance [with ][Secti]Pn l44C and in due course [of]time, the AssessingOfficer also havfngpassed the final assessmentorder, the [question ][croPs uP ][for ][co],isideration is the effect of [such]an assessment order [and the judicia]Iprecedents on the said issue. 9. Recently, the High Court ofKarnataka arnataka [[had ][an ][occasion ]][[an ][occasion ]][[occasion ]][[of]]dealing with such [issue ][in ][the ][ca]I[e of ][Open ][Silicon ][Research]Private Limited vs. [The ][Assess]ent Unit, Nationat FacelessAssessment Centre, Income-Tal<Department and Othersl. 9. Recently, the High Court ofKarnataka arnataka [[had ][an ][occasion ]][[an ][occasion ]][[occasion ]][[of]]dealing with such [issue ][in ][the ][ca]I[e of ][Open ][Silicon ][Research]Private Limited vs. [The ][Assess]ent Unit, Nationat FacelessAssessment Centre, Income-Tal<Department and Othersl. Karnataka arnataka [[had ][an ][occasion ]][[an ][occasion ]][[occasion ]][[of]] I Order da ted 79.O1 .2023 in writ Petition No 14541 of 202TIT11 The High Court dealing with the said objectiontn paragraph Nos.7,8 10, 11 and 13 has held as under: "7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an eligibleassessee in terms of Section 144c (15)(b)(i) of the Act. It isalso not in dispute that the draft order was issued andassessee in terms of Section 144c (15)(b)(i) of the Act. It isalso not in dispute that the draft order was issued andcommunicated to the oetitioner. It is also not in drspute thatthe petitioneir has filed its objections before the DRP as isevident from the Acknowledgment at Annexure-H which iswithin the time stipulated, which is also not controverted.the petitioneir has filed its objections before the DRP as isevident from the Acknowledgment at Annexure-H which iswithin the time stipulated, which is also not controverted. 8. No doubt, there has been lapse in not filing the objectionsunder Section 144C (2)(b)(ii) of the Act before the assessingofficer. It is clear from the facts that the DRP has issueddirections as per Annexure-N. Though the said direction isdated 15.05.2023 after passing of the assessment order on26.1O.2022, question as to whether non-filing of objectionsbefore the assessing officer will have the effect of assessingofficer being empowered to go ahead and conclude theproceedings when in fact the petitioner had filed objectionsbefore the DRP and had not intimated the same to theassessing oFficer, req uires consideration. 10. Once such objections have been filed, the DRP in termsof Section 144C (5) may issue directions for guidance of theassessing officer to enable him to complete the assessment.The power oF the ERP is provided for under Sections 144C(6) to 144C (10) of the Act. After the DRP exercises powervested under Section 144C as noticed above and directionsare issued, the assessing officer has no discretion except toact in conformity with the directions. 11. It is not in dispute that iF [nq ]directions are issued, theassessing oFficer need not wait under [Section ]144C [(13).]However, the fact remains that once objections are filedbefore the DRP and till directioni are issued, the assessingofflcer cannot proceed further. this is in light of mandateunder Section 144C (13). Accordingly, [non- intimation ][to ][the]assessing offlcer under Section 1q+C [(Z)(U)(ii) ]though is [a]lapse on the part of the [petitioner, ]the only way ofmeaningfully and harmoniously inferpreting the obligation [of]filing objections under section 14iC (2)(b)(ii) is to construethe procedure that once such objPctions [are filed ][before ][the]DRP and till the decision is taken by the [regarding]directions to be passed, the assEssing officer ought [not ][to]proceed further.............. .. , .......Accordingly, the assessment grder is [required ][to ][be ][set]aside. In light of the above, the assessment order [at]Annexure-A1 is set aside. Consequently, the [computation]sheet at Annexure-A2 and the Oer,'lrana [notice ][at ][Annexure-A3]are set aside. 13. In light of [he above, [petition is ][disposed ][off. ][The matter]is restored to the stage of laac(1$) [and ]the [assessing officer]shall proceed further [in ]terms of [tlhe ][procedure under ][Section]144C(13) and the time corltemplated [under ][Section]144C(13) is deemed to commence [from the date ][of ][receipt of]certified copy of this [order ]by the [assessing oFficer. ][The]assessing oFficer is to [follow ]the [directions issued ][by ][the ] at Annexure-N. It is clarified that [the ][observations ][made]above are made in the context of [directions being ][issued ][by]the DRP at a subsequent [point ]of [time ][and ][will not ][have ][the]effect of construing the duty 1s [file ][objections before ][the]assesslng officer under Section [la ][C(2)(b)(ii) ][as ][being]optional and not mandatorY." ,\ a 10. A similar view has also been taken by the Delhi High Court inthe case of Pepsico India Holdings (P.) Ltd. vs. AssessmentUnit Income-tax Department National Faceless AssessmentCentre2 wherein again the Division Bench of Delhi High Court inparagraph Nos.6 to t has held as under: "6. He submits that under Section 144C(2)(b)(ii), thePetitioner on receipt of the draft assessment order wasstatutorily required to file its objections before the AssessingOfficer in addition to the DRP. He further submits thatunder Section 144C(3)(b) the Assessing Officer was obligatedto complete the assessment on the basis of the draftassessment order if no objections were received wlthin thetime period specified under Section l44C(2) i.e. within thirtydays of the receipt of the draft order. He statcs that theAssessing Officer was well within his right to pass theimpugned assessment order dated 21st November, .1023 andhe cannot be faulted for finalising the assessment inaccordance with the prescribed procedure. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court isof the view that the issue at hand is no longer res tntegra as ithas been decided by the Bombay High Court in SulzerPumps (supra) wherein it has been held as under:- L L"6. In our view since petitioner had already filed areference raising his objections to the DRP and Section144C (4) of the Act requires the Assessing Officer topass the final order including the view expres5cd by the DRP, we will be justifieq in setting aside the order of theAssessing Officer dat$d 28th lune, 2021 which isimpugned in this petitiqn. we would also observe thatthe Assessing Officer cdn ot be faulted for passing theAssessing Officer dat$d 28th lune, 2021 which isimpugned in this petitiqn. we would also observe thatthe Assessing Officer cdn ot be faulted for passing thermpugned order. At the Fame time, the Assessing Officerwill also have benefit of considering the views of DRpwill also have benefit of considering the views of DRpwhrle passing a fresh Assessment Order.,,Order.,, 8. This Court is in agreementwith the view expressed by theBombay High Court in theaforesaid decision. Once theobjections have been filed bYthe assessee against a draftassessment order withinthe time limit prescribedunder section 144c(2)(b), the rest of the procedure shourd befollowed as prescribed and tht!final assessment order oughtto be passed by the AssessrnqOfficer in accordance with thedirections issued by the DRp. 9. This Court is further of the view that no prejudice will becaused to the Respondent_Depfftment it the present petitionis allowed and the impugned aspessment order is set aside asRespondent-Department would be well within its rights topass a fresh assessment order post the receipt of directionfrom the Respondent No. 3_DRp 11. Earlier also a similar stand [vas taken by the Bombay HighCourt in the case of Sulzer pumps fndia privateLimited vs. Dy.Commissionerof fncome Tax, Circle ,l_15(3)(2) and Ors.3wherein in paragraph No.6 it has belen held as under: I Order dated 27.10.2021 in Writ petition (t) No.15811 of 2021 9. This Court is further of the view that no prejudice will becaused to the Respondent_Depfftment it the present petitionis allowed and the impugned aspessment order is set aside asRespondent-Department would be well within its rights topass a fresh assessment order post the receipt of directionfrom the Respondent No. 3_DRp 11. Earlier also a similar stand [vas taken by the Bombay HighCourt in the case of Sulzer pumps fndia privateLimited vs. Dy.Commissionerof fncome Tax, Circle ,l_15(3)(2) and Ors.3wherein in paragraph No.6 it has belen held as under: I Order dated 27.10.2021 in Writ petition (t) No.15811 of 2021 "6. In our view since petitioner had already filed a referenceraising his objections to the DRP and Section 144C (4) of theAct requires Assessing Officer to pass the flnal order includingthe view expressed by the DRP, we will be [justified ]in settingaside the order of the Assessing Officer dated 28th lune,2021 which is impugned in this petition." L2. Recently again the High Court of Karnataka in the case of ZoomRx Healthcare Technology Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs.Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTaxa relying upon its own decision in the case of Open SiliconResearch Private Limited (supra) held in paragraph Nos.5 and 6as under: "5. Taking note that the objections have been filed before theDRP and in light of the observations made in the case oFOpen Silicon Research (P) Ltd referred to hercinabove, itis clear that the Assessment Order passed disregarding theobjections filed, requires to be interfered with. The AssessingOfficer ought to have waited till directions are passed by DRP. 6. Taking note that objections have been filed beforr: the DRP,it would meet the ends of justice by allowing the petrtion bysetting aside the order at Annexure-'A' dated 20.11 .2023 witha further direction that the Assessing Officer must follow thedirections of DRP and proceed thereafter, while DRP wouldissue necessary directions taking note of the obje(-tions filed " IZOZa; tO: taxmann.com ,747 (Karnataka) by the petitioner filed, copy ot whi h Fis enclosed at Annexure- F'G'. Accordingly, the petition is a/l!wedsimilar view was taken view was taken was taken taken bytr, " 13. A similar view was taken view was taken was taken taken by Bombay High Court in the case of APM Terminals India Priv'ate Limited vs. Assessment Unit,. Income Tax Department-N]FAC & Ors.s whereby the writpetition was allowed in terms of therder [passed ]in Sulzer PumpsIndia Private Limited (supra). L4. Even the [jurisdictional ]High C urt in the instant case i.e. the High Court for the State of Telang{na had an occasion of dealingwith a similar question in the ca e of Infor (India) PrivateLimited vs. Additional/Joint/Dep ty/Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax / IncomeTaxOfficer, National FacelessAssessment Centre, Delhi and pthers [6 ]wherein in [paragraph]Nos.3 to 6 it has been held as under "3. Though counter affidavit hfs not been filed by therespondents, nonetheless Ms. K.fvlamata Choudary, [Iearned]counsel submits on the basis of [written ][instructions. ][Ms.]K.lYamata Choudary has explain$d [in ][her ][submission ][that]assessing officer could not considfr [the ][obiections raised ]bythe petitioner before the Dispute Resolutlon [Panel ]as thosewere not placed before the a ssessiirg [officer.] 5 Order dated 12.02.2024 n Writ Petition (L) No.2030 ofu Order dated 17 06.20)4in Writ Petition No.27596 of 2 4. There is a consensus at the Bar that in view of non-compliance of the procedure laid down under Sections l44Band 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly referred tohereinafter as the 'Act'), the impugned assessment orderdated 07.10.2021 passed by the 1st respondent and theconsequential demand notice dated 07.10.2027 should be setaside and the matter remanded back to the assessing officeri.e., 1st respondent after the Dispute Resolution Panel issuesthe directions under the aforesaid provision. 5 Order dated 12.02.2024 n Writ Petition (L) No.2030 ofu Order dated 17 06.20)4in Writ Petition No.27596 of 2 4. There is a consensus at the Bar that in view of non-compliance of the procedure laid down under Sections l44Band 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly referred tohereinafter as the 'Act'), the impugned assessment orderdated 07.10.2021 passed by the 1st respondent and theconsequential demand notice dated 07.10.2027 should be setaside and the matter remanded back to the assessing officeri.e., 1st respondent after the Dispute Resolution Panel issuesthe directions under the aforesaid provision. 5. Consequently order dated 07.LO.2O2L and theconsequential notice of demand dated 07.10.2021 are herebyset aside. Matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent Forpassing fresh order of assessment in accordance with lawafter affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Be it stated that the Dispu[e Resolution Panel may issuethe necessary directions in accordance with law within aperiod of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. " 15. Keeping in view the series of ;udiclal precedents narrated inthe preceding paragraphs, this Bench has no hesitation in reachingto the conclusion and forming the opinion that the assessment orderdated 22.12.2023 would not be sustainable as the Assessing Officercould have passed the assessment order only after the decision ofthe DRP on the objections so Filed by the petitioner under Sectionl44C(2). Undisputedly, when the assessment order was passed, theobjection before the DRP was pending. It can also not be authentically accepted that the Assessing Officer was not aware ofthe objections so filed by the pbtitioner before DRP with anintimation to the Assessing Officer, as the acknowledgement and thetransaction ID issued from theAssessingOfficer's office also isenclosed along with the writ petition. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons, the assessment order dated22.12.2023 issued by respondentNo. 1deserves to be and isaccording set aside and the rejection of the objections by the DRPvide order dated 30.08.2024 also deperves to be and is accordinglyset aside. The matter stands remitted back to the DRP for taking afresh call on the obJections filed by tfie petitioner and the AssessingOfficer to proceed only thereafter in terms of the order passed byDRP. L7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writpetition stands allowed. As a cofsequence, the other orderssubsequently [passed ]are also set aside. 18. Though I.A.No.4 of 2025 is filed by the petltioner forimpleadment of DRP as a necess4ry [party, ]we do not find itnecessary as the learned Standing Cdunsel himself has admitted the fact that DRP is also another arm of the Income Tax Departmentitself. Hence, I.A.No.4 of 2025 stands dismissed. 19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitrons [pending ]if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to [costs.] SD/. T. JAYASREETPUTY REGISTRAR'.lsecrtoH oFFlcER ,/TRUE P.SAM KOSHY JUSTIP.SAM KOSHYOne fair [coPY ][to ] (For His LordshiP [s ][Kind]Perusal)JUSTICENARSING one fair [copy to ][rHE ][HoNNolJHl?bt ]3['(For His LordshiP's [Kind ][Perusal)] To, 18. Though I.A.No.4 of 2025 is filed by the petltioner forimpleadment of DRP as a necess4ry [party, ]we do not find itnecessary as the learned Standing Cdunsel himself has admitted the fact that DRP is also another arm of the Income Tax Departmentitself. Hence, I.A.No.4 of 2025 stands dismissed. 19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitrons [pending ]if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to [costs.] SD/. T. JAYASREETPUTY REGISTRAR'.lsecrtoH oFFlcER ,/TRUE P.SAM KOSHY JUSTIP.SAM KOSHYOne fair [coPY ][to ] (For His LordshiP [s ][Kind]Perusal)JUSTICENARSING one fair [copy to ][rHE ][HoNNolJHl?bt ]3['(For His LordshiP's [Kind ][Perusal)] To, 1. The Additional/Joinu [Deputy/ ][Assistant Commissioner of ][lncome ][Tax/ lncome-]tax Officer, [National ][f'""ril"'nttltsment ][Centre ][Assessment ][Unit' ][Room]No 401,2nd [Floor, ][E-R;;' ][i;Jarlal ][Nehru ][St-a!i.u1 ][Delhi-110003']tax Officer, [National ][f'""ril"'nttltsment ][Centre ][Assessment ][Unit' ][Room]No 401,2nd [Floor, ][E-R;;' ][i;Jarlal ][Nehru ][St-a!i.u1 ][Delhi-110003']2. The [Deputy ][Commissionei'otlncorne tax' ][Circle.-2(.1)' Signature ][Towers']Opposite [[Botanical ][C,r.o"ni ionJ'pur' ][Hyderabad' Telangana-500084']][[C,r.o"ni ionJ'pur' ][Hyderabad' Telangana-500084']][[Hyderabad' Telangana-500084']][[Towers' opposite]]Opposite [[Botanical ][C,r.o"ni ionJ'pur' ][Hyderabad' Telangana-500084']][[C,r.o"ni ionJ'pur' ][Hyderabad' Telangana-500084']][[Hyderabad' Telangana-500084']][[Towers' opposite]] Opposite [[Botanical ][C,r.o"ni ionJ'pur' ][Hyderabad' Telangana-500084']][[C,r.o"ni ionJ'pur' ][Hyderabad' Telangana-500084']][[Hyderabad' Telangana-500084']]3 The Principal [commissione"r'"ii;;;; ][i;i ][-2' signature ][[Towers' opposite]]" e;irri"ri Grrdens, Kondapur' Hyderabad' Telangana-500084'" e;irri"ri Grrdens, Kondapur' Hyderabad' Telangana-500084'1. 11 11 [[L.R. ]][[CoPies.]][[of Law ][Justice ]][[Justice ]][[and ]][Company][[of Law ][Justice ]][[Justice ]][[and ]][Company] 1. 11 11 [[L.R. ]][[CoPies.]]2. The [Under Secretary, Union ][of lndia' ][Ministry ][[of Law ][Justice ]][[Justice ]][[and ]][Company]2. The [Under Secretary, Union ][of lndia' ][Ministry ][[of Law ][Justice ]][[Justice ]][[and ]][Company] Affairs, [New Delhi']Advocates Association [Library, ][High ][Court]Advocates Association [Library, ][High ][Court]3. The [Secretary, ][Telangana]Buildings, [[HYderabad]]Buildings, [[HYderabad]] Buildings, [[HYderabad]]4 ;;Cd; [ilr" ][r ][snrr-nruA'Advocate[oPUC]-^^...] ; o;; aa [io ][snr ][p ][MURALI KRISHNA' Advocate ][IoPUC]] 6. Two CD [[CoPigs]] Two CD [[CoPigs]]BM [YN,]BM [YN,] HIGH COURT DATED:10 10312025 (-)', r-l1 [Sf4 ]7€(ORDER21 [2025](*WP.No.10372 of 2024\\-: ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ( A-a4q-)6 J