BUNTELER AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. THE UNION OF INDIA THR THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPT OF REVENUE AND ORS

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for both sides, disposed of finally.

Brief facts of the case are this. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of automotive fasteners and connectors. The entire share capital of the petitioner is held by Bentler Automotive International GMBH, TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2026.04.22 15:50:01 +0530

The Petitioner filed its return of income on 27.11.2016, disclosing income for Assessment Year 2016–2017 as ‘Nil’. Notice under Section 143(2) dated 01.08.2017 was issued by Respondent No. 2 for scrutiny assessment. Thereafter, on 29.05.2018, Respondent No. 2 transferred the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of the arm’s length price. Notices under Section 92CA(1) dated 07.12.2018 and 05.04.2019 were issued by the Transfer Pricing Officer. The petitioner replied. However, the Transfer Pricing Officer passed an order dated 30.10.2019 under Section 92CA(3), adjusting the arm’s length price by Rs.7,93,60,779/-. On the same day, notice under Section 142(1) came to be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed its reply vide letters dated 06.11.2019 and 18.11.2019. 4. However, without issuing a draft order mandated under Section 144C(1) of the Act, Respondent No. 2 passed a final assessment order dated 27.11.2019 under Section 143(3), assessing the total income as Rs.7,93,60,779/-. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a protective appeal against the same. sr.2-wp-10391-2022.doc

However, subsequently, a draft assessment order dated 28.11.2019 came to be passed. The petitioner appeared before the DRP pursuant to the said order. The petitioner filed its detailed objections before the DRP, which passed an order dated 22.02.2021. In terms of Section 144C(5) of the Act, directions were issued by the DRP. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, Respondent No. 2 was required to pass a final assessment order to give effect to the above directions.

The final assessment order ought to have been passed on or before 31st March, 2021. In terms of notifications issued by CBDT under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, the time allowed for passing the order was extended up to 30th June, 2021. However, yet, no order was passed. The Petitioner, vide letter dated 03.03.2021, requested Respondent No. 2 for passing the order. Further, vide letter dated 25.04.2022, the petitioner requested to set aside the pending proceedings against it as the assessment was time-barred. Respondent No. 2 did not respond to the above submitted letters. Hence, the present petition came to be filed. An Affidavit in reply has been filed on 24.07.2024 by the Respondents. sr.2-wp-10391-2022.doc

On 06.04.2026, the present petition was listed, and after hearing both sides, this Court inquired with the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 as to whether any final assessment order had been passed pursuant to the DRP directions dated 22.02.2021. In response thereto, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, vide Email dated 08.04.2026, has placed on record written instructions stating that upon verification of the ITBA systems and the case records, no such order has been passed. It has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune that no final order, pursuant to the DRP’s directions issued under Section 144C(5) dated 22.02.2021, has been passed either on the ITBA or manually.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and with their assistance, we have perused the record.

The undisputed fact before this Court is that no final assessment order has been passed pursuant to the directions of the DRP vide order dated 20.02.2021. Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act requires the Assessing Officer to pass the final assessment order pursuant to DRP directions within one month from the end of the month in which such directions are received. In the instant case, the DRP, in terms of Section 144C(5), issued directions on 22.02.2021. sr.2-wp-10391-2022.doc

Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, reported at 2022-TIOL-431-HC- Mum-IT, in similar facts, held as under:

In these circumstances, we allow the writ petition in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads as under: sr.2-wp-10391-2022.doc

Mr. Raichandani states that to be on the safer side, the petitioner filed an appeal as well against the order dated 27.11.2019, treating the same as a final order. He undertakes to withdraw the said appeal within two weeks from today. The undertaking is accepted.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

This order will be Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]