P.C.:

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. The above Writ Petition challenges the Final Assessment Order dated 24th March 2025 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”), as well as the impugned notices dated 24th March 2025 issued under Section 156 and 274 read with Section 270A of the IT Act. The Assessment Year in question is A.Y. 2022-23.

Page 1 of 10

Digitally signed ------------------------------------- by SHUBHAM Order dated 30th October 2026 SHUBHAM SHESHRAO SHESHRAO GADHAVEPATIL GADHAVEPATIL Date:2026.11.0212:01:54 +0530

3. The Petitioner in the present case is a company incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner filed its Return of Income for AY 2022-23 on 25th November 2022 declaring a business loss of Rs27,19,53,542/-.

4. The case of the Petitioner was selected for complete scrutiny. Since Petitioner had entered into certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises, a reference was made on 6th September 2023 by Respondent No. 1 to the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) for determination of the Arm’s Length Price. The TPO passed an order under Section 92CA(3) of the IT Act on 10th January 2025, making an upward transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.2,41,67,387/-. Based on the said TPO order, Respondent No. 1 passed the Final Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act on 24th March 2025, restricting the Petitioner’s assessed loss to Rs. 24,77,86,155/- by incorporating the aforesaid transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.2,41,67,387/-

5. The short grievance in the above Petition is that in the facts of the present case, the Petitioner is an “eligible assessee” as contemplated under Section 144C(15)(b)(i), and therefore, before any Final Assessment Order could have been passed which was prejudicial to the interest of the assessee, the Assessing Officer ought to have passed a Draft Assessment Order and served it on the Petitioner so as to enable it to file its objections (to the Draft Assessment Order) before the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) as contemplated under the provisions of Section 144C. This is for the simple reason that variation referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 144C arises as a consequence of the order of the TPO passed under sub-section (3) of Section 92CA. If no Draft Assessment Order is passed and served on the Petitioner, the Final Assessment Order cannot stand, is the contention of the Petitioner.

6. The learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents, vide his email dated27th January 2024, had sought instructions from the Revenue. He has obtained written instructions dated 16th February 2026 (wrongly mentioned as 16.02.2025) from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was produced before the Court. The said instructions were received by the learned Advocate for the Revenue under cover of a letter dated 17th February 2026 from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune. The said instructions fairly mention that upon perusal of the order sheet, it was revealed that no Draft Assessment Order had been passed before passing the Final Assessment Order and that the grounds raised by the Petitioner in respect of non-passing of the Draft Assessment Order under Section 144C of the Act were found to be correct. In the said instructions, it was submitted that non-issuance of the Draft Assessment Order was an inadvertent procedural lapse. It was further submitted that the defect was procedural and curable in nature, and therefore, the impugned Final Assessment Order may be set aside and the matter restored to the stage of issuance of the Draft Assessment Order under Section 144C(1) of the Act, thereby enabling the Petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy provided under the said provision. The said instructions alongwith the covering letter tendered to the Court are taken on