Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High 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

Similar News