Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

IT Act - Non-Issuance of Draft Assessment Order Renders Final Order Void, Delhi High Court

15 November 2024 4:46 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court upholds the necessity of draft assessment order under Section 144C, dismissing the application of principles from Sarabjit Singh's case.
The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that a failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act renders the final assessment order void. The court dismissed the argument that this infraction is merely procedural, emphasizing the distinct and mandatory nature of the draft assessment process, particularly for eligible assessees.
The case involved several petitions where the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to finalize assessment orders without issuing a draft assessment order after remand by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The petitioners argued that the omission to issue a draft assessment order was not just a procedural irregularity but a fundamental violation of their rights under the law.
The court noted that the issuance of a draft assessment order is a critical step in the assessment process, particularly under Section 144C, which applies to eligible assessees. The court rejected the respondents' reliance on the precedent set by the Sarabjit Singh case, where non-compliance with Section 144B was deemed a mere procedural irregularity.
Justice Yashwant Varma emphasized that Section 144C introduces a special and distinct mechanism for assessment, involving multiple tiers of review, including the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which are integral to ensuring fairness and transparency in the assessment process. The court observed that the failure to issue a draft assessment order deprives the assessee of the opportunity to challenge the proposed variations, a right enshrined within the statutory framework.
The court differentiated Section 144C from the earlier Section 144B, under which the Sarabjit Singh case was decided. It noted that while Section 144B allowed for a degree of internal review by the Deputy Commissioner, Section 144C mandates a more rigorous process, involving a draft order that is subject to review and challenge at multiple levels. The court ruled that non-compliance with this process cannot be considered a mere procedural lapse but constitutes a fundamental flaw that vitiates the final assessment order.
"The failure to frame a draft order of assessment not only curtails the right of the assessee to adopt corrective measures, but also deprives it of a salutary right to challenge the draft in terms of the statutory mechanism laid in place," the court noted in its judgment .
The Delhi High Court's ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural fairness in tax assessments. By affirming the necessity of a draft assessment order under Section 144C, the judgment sets a precedent that reinforces the protection of taxpayers' rights in the assessment process. This ruling is likely to have significant implications for future cases where similar procedural violations occur.

 

Date of Decision: September 02, 2024

Latest Legal News