The assessing officer must await the Dispute Resolution Panel's decision before proceeding with the final assessment, as outlined in Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, ensuring adherence to procedural mandates.

ORDER :

S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“a) Issue a writ of certiorari or a direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dt.10.07.2024 bearing No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1066561592(1) by the Respondent 1 for the assessment year 2016-17- Digitally signed (ANNEXURE-‘H');

b) Issue a writ of certiorari or a direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned assessment order along with demand notice dt.31.01.2025 bearing No.ITBA/AST/M/147/2024-25/1072927250(1) by the Respondent 1 for the assessment year 2016-17 (ANNEXURE-‘J');

c) Issue a writ of prohibition or a direction in the nature of writ of prohibition restraining the Respondent -1 from proceedings further in the matter of recovery in pursuance of the impugned assessment order along with demand notice dt.31.01.2025 bearing No. ITBA/AST/M/147/2024-25/1072927250(1) (ANNEXURE-J);

d) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent- 1 to consider the submission of the petitioner as the same is filed within the stipulated time limit.

e) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent -3 to clarify and to pass the justification order in order to assume the jurisdiction of the petitioner;

f) Pass such other order, direction or writ as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, and g) Direct the respondents to award the costs of this writ petition.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in response to the notice dated 09.03.2024 issued by the respondents under Section 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act (for short, ‘IT Act’), the petitioner submitted a reply dated 13.03.2024 pursuant to which, respondent No.3 passed a Draft Assessment Order under Section 144C(1) of the IT Act dated 16.03.2024. The said Draft Assessment Order dated 16.03.2024 was communicated to the petitioner on 18.03.2024 as can be seen from the Communication/letter dated 18.03.2024 issued by respondent No.3 to the petitioner. On 16.04.2024, that is within the prescribed period of 30 days, the petitioner filed objections in Form No.35A, which was received by the respondents on 16.04.2024 through courier. Subsequently, on 08.05.2024, the said objections filed by the petitioner to the Draft Assessment Order was transferred to the Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, Bengaluru vide Annexure – G1 dated 08.05.2024, in pursuance of which, respondent No.3 proceeded to pass the impugned order without awaiting conclusion of the proceedings before the DRP-1 on the premise that the objections had not been filed within the stipulated period of 30 days and the same cannot be considered, which was filed beyond the period of limitation. Aggrieved by the impugned assessment order and the impugned notice, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. In support of his contention, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in INFRRD Private Limited Vs. Assessment Unit and others - W.P.No.11367/2025 dated 16.04.2025.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. In INFRRD Private Limited’s case supra, this Court noticed that though the objections had been filed by the petitioner- assessee therein especially to the Draft Assessment Order within the period of limitation, the respondents ought to have awaited the outcome of the DRP proceedings and could not have pass