First Appellate Court Cannot Grant Relief Beyond Pleadings Or Determine Shares In A Non-Partition Suit: Jharkhand High Court Probate Cannot Be Granted Merely On Proof Of Signature If Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding Testator’s Health & Will’s Execution Remain Unexplained: Gujarat High Court Litigant Seeking Case Transfer Under Section 24 CPC Must Approach Court With Clean Hands: Andhra Pradesh High Court Technical Qualification In Tenders Does Not Guarantee Selection; Presentation For Qualitative Assessment Is Permissible 'Play In The Joints': Delhi High Court Registration Of Sale Deed Acts As Constructive Notice; Section 53A TPA Is A Shield, Not A Sword To Assert Ownership: Gujarat High Court Is Dividend Distribution Tax A Tax On Company Or Shareholder? Bombay High Court Refers 'Cleavage Of Opinion' To Larger Bench May" In Service Regulations Is Directory; Delinquent Employee Has No Right To Insist On Common Disciplinary Proceedings: Supreme Court Billing Errors In Hospitals Don't Amount To Cheating Or Breach Of Trust Without Proof Of Dishonest Intention: Supreme Court Quashed FIR IBC Appeal Filed Without Applying For Certified Copy Within Limitation Period Is 'Incurably Tainted': Supreme Court 35% Share Of Gross Receipts From AOP Is 'Revenue Sharing' Taxable As Business Income, Not Tax-Exempt 'Share Of Profit': Supreme Court Market Value Determination Under Section 26(1) Of 2013 LA Act Cannot Be Based On A Single Sale Deed Of Dissimilar Land: Supreme Court Professional Career Choice Of Qualified Woman Not Cruelty Or Desertion; Wife's Identity Not Subject To 'Spousal Veto': Supreme Court Dictation Given In Open Court Not Final Judgment; Only Signed Order Embodies Final Unalterable Opinion: Supreme Court Engineering Student's Notional Income Cannot Be Equated To Minimum Wages Of Unskilled Workers: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation High Court Cannot Stay Filing Of Charge-Sheet By Blindly Relying On Precedents Without Factual Analysis: Supreme Court State Must Impart Education In Mother Tongue; Supreme Court Directs Rajasthan Govt To Introduce Rajasthani Language In Schools Right To Receive Education In Mother Tongue Or Language Of Choice Is A Fundamental Right Under Article 19(1)(a): Supreme Court

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