A taxpayer must file objections to proposed tax assessments with both the Dispute Resolution Panel and Assessing Officer for effective challenge under the Income Tax Act.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has impugned the respondent's Final Assessment Order dated 31.10.2023 [Annexure- C] under Sections 143(3), 144C(3) read with Section 144B of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 [for short, 'the IT Act'] for the relevant assessment year 2020-21 impugning the contemporaneous Computation Sheet and Demand Notices as also initiation of the penalty proceedings. The petitioner's case is that upon service of notice of the Draft Assessment Order as contemplated under Section 144C(1) of the IT Act, the petitioner has filed objections as against the proposed variation with the Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] but by inadvertence, the same is not filed with the Assessing Officer viz., the Faceless Assessment Centre, and because the Assessing Officer is thus not informed about the objections to the proposed variance, the impugned Assessment Order is concluded under Section 144C(3)(a) of the IT Act.

2. Sri. Deepak Chopra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. E. I. Sanmathi, the learned standing counsel for the respondent, are heard for final disposal of the petition in the light of this contention and the decision of this Court in the case of Open Silicon Research Private Limited v. The Assessment Unit and Others W.P.No.14541/2023 [T-IT] decided on 19.07.2023 and the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre and Ors W.P.(C) 15322/2023 & CM APPL.61469/2023 decided on 01.12.2023.

3. This Court must record that it is undisputed that the petitioner has filed the objections to the proposed variance within thirty [30] days from the date of receipt of the Draft Assessment Order as contemplated under Section 144C(2) of the IT Act, but the petitioner has filed such Objections only with the DRP [as required under Section 144C[2][b][i] of the IT Act] and has not marked a copy of the same to the Assessing Officer [as required under Section 144C[2][b][ii] of the Act]. Further, that an assessee must file objections to the proposed variance as contemplated under Section 144C(b) of the IT Act with both the Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] and the Assessing Officer is indisputable, but it is not contested that this obligation must be meaningfully and harmoniously interpreted because ultimately, if the objections are filed with the DRP, the same must result in directions and the Assessing Officer must complete assessment in the light of the directions as envisaged under Section 144C(13)(3) of the IT Act:

[3] Section 144C(13): Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received]

4. This Court, in the light of these undisputable facts and the proposition that the provisions of Section 144C must be harmoniously and meaningfully read, is of the considered view that, to enable Assessment after due consideration, the impugned Assessment Order, the consequential Computation Sheet, the Demand Notice and initiation of the proceedings must be quashed restoring the proceedings to the stage of Section 144C(5) of the IT Act directing the DRP to consider the petitioner's objections as against the proposed variance. In the light of the afore, the following:

ORDER:

[A] The petition is allowed in part, and the impugned Final Assessment Order dated 31.10.2023 [Annexure-C], the consequential Computation Sheet, the Demand Notices and initia