URVASHI NARAIN,USA vs. ITO,WARD INT. TAXATION 2(1)(2), DELHI

ITA 1889/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2017-1810 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO's final assessment order was passed without jurisdiction as it failed to comply with the DRP's directions. The Tribunal emphasized that once a final assessment order is passed, the AO cannot unilaterally modify or substitute it, as this is against the scheme of the Income Tax Act.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) initially passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) and later a draft assessment order under Section 144C, stating the first order was passed inadvertently. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the assessee's objection that a final order cannot be annulled or modified later, and directed accordingly. However, the AO passed a final assessment order replicating the draft order.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO can pass a final assessment order that contradicts the directions of the DRP, especially when the DRP has ruled that a previously passed final order cannot be modified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(1),Section 144C(5),Section 144C(13)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma
For Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT DR
Hearing: 06.04.2023Pronounced: 31.05.2023

PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 27.06.2022 under Section 143(3) read

2 with section 144C(13) of the Income-Tax Act,1961 pertaining to assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the assessee drew

out attention to ground no. 5 and urged the Bench to decide the appeal

on this preliminary issue.

3.

Ground no.5 reads as under:

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned A.O has erred both on facts and in law in not complying with the directions of DRP has held that once the final order dated 15.09.2021 has been passed und

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144C(1)

All 423 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →