Allowing the petition the Court held, that the Deputy Commissioner had passed the draft assessment order dated April 19, 2021 under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act proposing to make an addition. By letter dated May 15, 2021, forwarded to him by e-mail on May 17, 2021, the assessee informed him that it would not be opting for the Dispute Resolution Panel route and instead would pursue the normal appellate channel. The communication was received by the Deputy Commissioner on May 17, 2021 and therefore, the time limit under sub-section (4) of section 144C of the Act would expire on June 30, 2021. Even if the submission of the Deputy Commissioner that e-mail dated May 17, 2021 was not uploaded in the Income-tax Business Application system were accepted and that the e-mail had to be ignored, still, the draft order having been received by the assessee on April 19, 2021, the thirty day period provided under sub-section (2) of section 144C of the Act would have expired on May 18, 2021 which would mean the time limit under sub-section (4) of the Act expired on June 30, 2021. On facts the order had been passed on September 27, 2021. Neither Circular No. 8 of 2021 nor Notification No. 74 of 2021 dated June 25, 2021 ([2021] 435 ITR (St.) 24) or press release dated June 25, 2021 would help the Deputy Commissioner. The assessment order dated September 27, 2021 had been passed beyond prescribed time limit. Order was quashed. (AY. 2018-19)
Renaissance Services Bv v. Dy. CIT (IT) (2022) 445 ITR 27 / 213 DTR 313/326 CTR 637/ 288 Taxman 244(Bom.)(HC)
S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order-Limitation-No objection raised by assessee-Assessment order passed on 27-9-2021-Barred by limitation. [Art. 226]