Search Results For: 144C


Atlas Copco (India) Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 29, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 7, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09, 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 144C/ 254: (i) Condonation of delay of 1018 days: None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Delay due to improper legal advice should be condoned. A technical view of dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay should not be taken if the legal issue has to be decided for other years (ii) A draft assessment order u/s 144C issued with a notice of demand u/s 156 and a s/ 271(1)(c) penalty notice is null and void (Eaton Fluid Power 96 TM.com 512 followed, BS Ltd 94 TM.com 346 (Hyd) distinguished)

It is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Similar to the cases under consideration, in that case too, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court condoned the delay. In yet another case in Anil Kumar Nehru and Another vs. ACIT (2017) 98 CCH 0469 BomHC, there was a delay of 1662 days in filing the appeal. Such a delay was not condoned by the Hon’ble High Court. In further appeal, condoning the delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Nehru vs. ACIT (2018) 103 CCH 0231 ISCC, held that : `It is a matter of record that on the identical issue raised by the appellant in respect of earlier assessment, the appeal is pending before the High Court. In these circumstances, the High Court should not have taken such a technical view of dismissing the appeal in the instant case on the ground of delay, when it has to decide the question of law between the parties in any case in respect of earlier assessment year.

Systra SA Project Office vs. DRP (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 24, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14, 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 144C DRP: Action of the DRP in granting time to the assessee till 24th July 2017 to submit documents but in still passing the order on the same day itself and that too without taking on record the documents produced by the assessee is clearly unreasonable and in violation of the principles of natural justice

Clearly, the Respondent acted in violation of the principles of natural justice, since despite the time being granted to the Petitioner till 24th July 2017 to submit documents sought by the DRP, the DRP passed the order on 24th July, 2017 itself and that too without taking on record the documents produced by the Petitioner till then. The time given for the Petitioner to do so was just four days. This was clearly unreasonable, particularly, since there was an intervening weekend between 20th and 24th July, 2017

Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd vs. ADIT (ITAT Jaipur)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 27, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 24, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(2)/ 144C: Though service of the notice is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction upon the AO to deal with the matter, it is a condition precedent to making of the order of assessment. Accordingly, the s. 143(2) notice has not only to be issued before the expiry of the limitation period but has also to be served upon the assessee before the expiry of the limitation period. Conflict between VRA Cotton Mills (P&H) and Lunar Diamonds 281 ITR 1 (Del) explained in light of CBDT Circular No. 549 dated 31.10.1989

Service under the 1961 Act is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction in the ITO to deal with the matter but it is a condition precedent to making of the order of assessment. The Hon’ble High Court, in our opinion, lost sight of the distinction and under a wrong basis felt bound by the judgment in Banarsi Devi’s case

Daewon Kang Up Co. Limited vs. DDIT (ITAT Chennai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 30, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 18, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 144C: The lapse committed by the AO in passing the assessment order without first passing a draft order, against which the assesee may file objections with the DRP, seeking its directions to the AO, is only a procedural irregularity, which does not impinge on the jurisdiction on the AO to pass the assessment order. The assessee has no vested right against procedure. However, as the lapse was held to be fatal in Vijay Television 369 ITR 113 (Mad), the same has to be followed

The lapse committed by the AO in passing the assessment order without first passing a draft order, against which the assesee may file objections with the DRP, seeking its directions to the AO, is only a procedural irregularity, which does not impinge on the jurisdiction on the AO to pass the assessment order, which he assumes on the issue of notice u/s. 143(2), even as observed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court itself in a number of cases, reference to one of which, i.e., R.V. Sarojini Devi v. IAC [2000] 242 ITR 329 (Mad) stands made in the decision itself (also refer Asst. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC)). Reference in this regard may be made to the decision in Daewon Kang Up Co. Ltd. v. DDIT Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC), wherein the Apex Court clarified that the AO assumes jurisdiction to assess on issue of a valid notice, and which obtained till the same remained to be disposed of. The proceedings completed without allowing the assessee an opportunity of being heard was an illegality, vitiating the proceedings, which would relate back in time, having occurred during the course of the assessment proceedings itself. The impugned order was to be set aside, and the proceedings to commence from the stage the illegality or the irregularity had occurred

PGS Geophysical vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 26, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
The DRP shall give clear and speaking directions to the AO for passing the assessment order and the statute ensures that the said power is not delegated to the AO.

A perusal of the above shows that the provisions of section 144C provides the entire mechanism for making a reference to the DRP; the power of the DRP and also the procedures which have to be followed to issue the direction to

Bharti Airtel Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 11, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 19, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
ITAT hauls up AO & DRP for “blatantly frivolous & unsustainable” additions. Suggests that accountability mechanism be set up to put a check on AO. Rationale for existence of ineffective DRP questioned


ITAT hauls up AO & DRP for “blatantly frivolous & unsustainable” additions. Suggests that accountability mechanism be set up to put a check on AO. Rationale for existence of ineffective DRP questioned

if an action of the AO is so blatantly unreasonable that such seasoned senior officers well versed with functioning of judicial forums, as the learned DRs are, cannot even go through the convincing motions of defending the same before us, such unreasonable conduct of the AO deserves to be scrutinized seriously. At a time when evolving societal pressures demand greater degree of accountability in the governance also, it does no good to the judicial institutions to watch such situations as helpless spectators. If it is indeed a case of frivolous addition, someone should be accountable for the resultant undue hardship to the taxpayer

Top