The court ruled that an Assessing Officer must wait for the Dispute Resolution Panel's directions before passing a final assessment order, even if objections are not communicated timely, emphasizing adherence to procedural mandates under the Income Tax Act.

ORDER :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

a) Call for records;

b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the impugned Final Assessment Order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure A) bearing No. DIN ITBA/AST/s/143(3)/2024- 25/1073945093 (1) passed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144C (3) and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the interest of justice;

c) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the consequential Notice of Demand (Annexure B) bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/156/2024-25/1073946390(1) dated 03/03/2025 issued by the Respondent No.1 under Section 156 of the Act in the interest of justice; A

d) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the Show Cause Notice under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2022-23 (Annexure D) bearing NO. ITSA/PNL/S/270A/2024-25/1073945278 (1) dated 03/03/2025 in the interest of justice;

e) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to restore the assessment proceedings to the stage of Section 144C (5) of the Act and adjudicate the Petitioner's objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (Respondent No. 3) in accordance with law.

f) Grant costs of the proceedings;”

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 pursuant to the petitioner filing his return of income on 23.11.2022 under Section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner income tax returns were selected for scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrutiny System (CASS) under Section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act in respect of which, a notice dated 01.06.2023 was issued and led to an order dated 16.01.2025 passed under Section 92 CA (3) by the Transfer Pricing Officer making substantial adjustments to the petitioner's declared income. Based on the aforesaid transfer pricing adjustment vide Order dated 16.01.2025, the respondent No.1 issued a draft assessment order dated 27.01.2025 incorporating the said adjustments.

4. Aggrieved by the proposed adjustments, the petitioner filed objections to the Draft Assessment Order before the respondent No.3 and communicated a copy of the objections to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer-the respondent No.2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the petitioner filing objections to the Draft Assessment Order as well as communicating the same to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - respondent No.2, respondent No.1 without awaiting the binding directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel has proceeded to pass the impugned Final Assessment Order, which is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.

5. In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon the following judgments:

i) Grab Greco LLP Vs. Assessment Unit/DCIT/ACIT/PCIT-1 – High Court of Karnataka -W.P.No.12339/2025 dated 24.04.2025

ii) Infrrd Private Limited Vs. Assessment Unit/ITO/PCIT-3 – High Court of Karnataka -W.P.No.11367/2025 dated 16.04.2025

iii) Jackson Square Aviation Ireland Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, INT. Tax – High Court of Delhi - W.P. (C) No.11636/2024 dated 09.12.2024.

iv) ZoomRx Healthcare Technology Solutions (P.) Ltd., Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – High Court of Karnataka – W.P.No.13955/2024 dated 11.06.2024

v) De Diamond Electric India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre – high Court of Delhi – W.P.(C) No.15982/2023 dated 12.12.2023.

vi) Google India Private Limited Vs. National Faceless Assessment Unit – High Court of Karnataka – W