NOORUDDIN RAFIUDDIN SHARIFF,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 4/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 April 2026AY 2016-173 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee before it was not maintainable. The reasoning was that the DRP had dismissed the assessee's objections as infructuous because the AO had already passed a final assessment order, and the DRP's jurisdiction is limited to draft assessment orders proposing variations, not final orders. The Tribunal observed that no direct appeal can be made to the ITAT against an order of the DRP in such circumstances. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nooruddin Rafiuddin Shariff, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, against an order of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (DRP), Bengaluru, dated 01.09.2025, for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee had filed objections before the DRP against a draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 05.03.2025. However, the AO had already passed the final assessment order on 28.05.2025, in accordance with the draft order. The DRP noted that it only has jurisdiction over draft assessment orders proposing variations and not over final orders. Consequently, the DRP dismissed the objections filed by the assessee as infructuous. The ITAT then raised an issue regarding the maintainability of the appeal before it.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee before the ITAT is maintainable against an order of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) that dismissed the assessee's objections as infructuous, when the DRP's jurisdiction is limited to draft assessment orders with proposed variations and not final orders? (Question of law and fact, concerning the scope of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee was unable to point out the specific provision of the Income Tax Act under which the appeal was filed. Revenue's contentions: The learned Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue questioned the maintainability of the present appeal before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144C,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 07.04.2026

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: This present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru [‘DRP’] dated 01.09.2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. At the outset, it is noted that the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2 [‘DRP’] has passed the direction u/s.144C (5) as under: - 1. A petition in Form No.35A was filed by the assessee raising objections regarding the draft order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred as "Act') on 01/04/2025 for the Assessment year 2016-17. It was seen that the Draft Assessment Order has been passed on 05/03/2025 and has been served on the assessee on the same day.

IT (IT)A 04/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Nooruddin Rafiuddin Shariff VS ITO :: - 2 - :: 2. During the hearing conducted u/s 144C(11) of the Act on 11/08/2025, the AR of the Assessee informed the Panel that the AO had already completed the assessment by passing the final assessment order on 28/05/2025 in accordance with the Draft Assessment Order. 3. We note that the Assessee has filed the objections before the Panel within the due date, however, as per the provisions of Section 144(C), the DRP has jurisdiction only over draft assessment orders wherein variations have been proposed and not over final orders. 4. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the objection filed before us is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. 3. After examining the matter, this Bench has raised an issue regarding the maintainability of the present appeal and the specific provision of the Income Tax Act under which it has been filed. The ld. AR for the assessee did not able to point out specific provision. 4. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue also questioned the maintainability of the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have considered the arguments from both sides and reviewed the order issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru. It is observed that no direct appeal can be made to this Tribunal against an order of the DRP. Accordingly, given the circumstances of the case, the present appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal and is therefore dismissed as infructuous.

Page - 2 - of 3

IT (IT)A 04/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Nooruddin Rafiuddin Shariff VS ITO :: - 3 - :: 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as not maintainable. Order pronounced in open court on the 07th day of April, 2026 in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (बालकृ�न एस) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (BALAKRISHNAN S) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, +दनांक/Dated: 07th April, 2026 SNDP, Sr. PS आदेश क ��त,ल-प अ.े-षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

Page - 3 - of 3

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →