Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M/S. Rain Cements Ltd., (Formerly M/S ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 31 August, 2016
Author: Anis
Bench: Anis
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS
Writ Petition No.33342 of 2015
31-8-2016
M/s. Rain Cements Ltd., (Formerly M/s Rain CII Carbon (India) Ltd.,
Hyderabad-73, Rep. by its Chief Financial Officer, GNVSRR Kumar Petitioner
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), I.T. Towers, Masab Tank,
Hyderabad-04; and 4 others Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Chopra
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma,
Senior Standing Counsel.
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
Nil.
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
HONBLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS
Writ Petition No.33342 of 2015
Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.)
The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition
seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 143(3)
read with Section 144-C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are
null and void and also for quashing the decision of the
Disputes Resolution Panel dated 22-6-2015.
2. We have heard Mr. Deepak Chopra, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma,
learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of
a company, by name Rain Industries Limited. It is engaged in
the business of manufacture of Calcinated Petroleum Coke
and Power Generation in the State.
4. The petitioner filed its return of income on 30-9-2008
for the Assessment Year 2008-09 declaring a loss of
Rs.23,71,90,124/- after claiming exemption of an amount of
Rs.84,87,05,352/- under Section 10B. The petitioner was
liable to pay taxes under Section 115JB on its book profits.
5. The case of the petitioner was taken up for scrutiny
and after considering the documents, an order under
Section 143(3) was passed on 25-01-2012. By this order, the
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax allowed deduction under
Section 10B to a lesser extent than what was claimed in the
original return of income.
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 25-01-2012 passed
under Section 143(3), the petitioner filed an appeal on
29-02-2012 before the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals). The appeal is stated to be pending for the past
more than four years.
7. In the meantime a notice dated 21-3-2013 was issued
under Section 148, calling upon the petitioner to file its
return of income. The petitioner submitted a letter dated
16-4-2013 requesting the Department to treat the return of
income filed on 30-9-2008 as the return. Thereupon, the
Assessing Officer sent a communication dated 31-7-2013,
stating the reasons for reopening of assessment.
The petitioner submitted its objections on 19-8-2013.
8. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner, passed a draft
assessment order dated 26-3-2014 computing the total
income at Rs.34,62,48,597/-, as against the loss originally
returned by the petitioner.
9. According to the petitioner, the draft assessment
order dated 26-3-2014 was not served on them, for a full
period of about five months. It is claimed by the petitioner
that the draft assessment order was served by hand on the
petitioner only on 22-8-2014.
10. Within 30 days of receipt of the draft assessment
order, the petitioner filed their objections before the Disputes
Resolution Panel, at Hyderabad on 18-9-2014. This was in
terms of Section 144-C (2) (b).
11. When the objections of the petitioner were pending
before the Disputes Resolution Panel, at Hyderabad, the
Central Board of Direct Taxes issued instructions dated
01-01-2015, reconstituting the jurisdiction of the Disputes
Resolution Panel. As per these instructions, the Disputes
Resolution Panel, Bengaluru assumed jurisdiction over the
States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Therefore the
objections raised by the petitioner were transferred to the
Disputes Resolution Panel, Bengaluru.
12. The Disputes Resolution Panel, Bengaluru, issued
a notice of hearing and the petitioner participated in the
hearing on 18-6-2015. The petitioner also made written
submissions on 22-6-2015.
13. However, the Disputes Resolution Panel, Bengaluru,
passed an order dated 22-6-2015 holding that the period of
nine months fixed by Section 144-C (12) had expired by
31-12-2014 and that since the DRP, Bengaluru assumed
jurisdiction only from 1-1-2015, they did not have jurisdiction
to pass any orders on the objections of the petitioner.
14. Immediately the Assessing Officer passed a final
assessment order dated 28-8-2015. Aggrieved by the final
assessment order and the decision of the Disputes Resolution
Panel, Bengaluru, the petitioner is before us.
15. The main grounds on which the petitioner
challenges the decision of the Disputes Resolution Panel, and
the consequential order of assessment are as follows:
(1) that the period of nine months stipulated in
sub-section (12) of Section 144-C has to be reckoned only
from the date on which the draft assessment order is
forwarded to the assessee and not from the date on which the
draft assessment order was passed,
(2) that when the Disputes Resolution Panel, Hyderabad
forwarded the papers to the Disputes Resolution Panel,
Bengaluru, they themselves indicated that the time limit
available for Disputes Resolution Panel, Bengaluru to issue
directions under sub-section (5), was up to June 2015, but
the Disputes Resolution Panel, Bengaluru, wrongly thought
that the time limit expired on 31-12-2014,
(3) that the Disputes Resolution Panels order to the
effect that Form 35A was not filed, was factually incorrect,
(4) that the Assessing Officer complicated matters by
presuming the order of the Disputes Resolution Panel dated
22-6-2015 to be a direction under sub-section (5), and
(5) that if the petitioner had not filed their objections to
the draft assessment order within time, the Assessing Officer
could have passed the final assessment order under
sub-section (3), immediately after the expiry of 30 days
available for filing the appeal and the very fact that the
Assessing Officer did not do so, makes it clear that the
Assessing Officer waited for a direction from the Disputes
Resolution Panel.
16. We have carefully considered the above
submissions.
17. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Section 144-C is a complete code in itself, as it
incorporates, all the dos and donts for the Disputes
Resolution Panel as well as the Assessing Officer. Therefore it
is necessary to extract Section 144-C. It reads as follows:
144C. (1) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first
instance, forward a draft of the proposed order of
assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as the draft
order) to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, on or
after the 1st day of October, 2009, any variation in the
income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest
of such assessee.
(2) On receipt of the draft order, the eligible assessee shall,
within thirty days of the receipt by him of the draft order,
(a) file his acceptance of the variations to the Assessing
Officer; or
(b) file his objections, if any, to such variation with,
(i) the Dispute Resolution Panel; and
(ii) the Assessing Officer.
(3) The Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment on
the basis of the draft order, if
(a) the assessee intimates to the Assessing Officer the
acceptance of the variation; or
(b) no objections are received within the period specified in
sub-section (2).
(4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in section 153 or section 153B, pass the
assessment order under sub-section (3) within one month
from the end of the month in which,
(a) the acceptance is received; or
(b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2)
expires.
(5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any
objection is received under sub-section (2), issue such
directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance of the Assessing
Officer to enable him to complete the assessment.
(6) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall issue the directions
referred to in sub-section (5), after considering the
following, namely:
(a) draft order;
(b) objections filed by the assessee;
(c) evidence furnished by the assessee;
(d) report, if any, of the Assessing Officer, Valuation Officer
or Transfer Pricing Officer or any other authority;
(e) records relating to the draft order;
(f) evidence collected by, or caused to be collected by, it;
and
(g) result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be made by,
it.
(7) The Dispute Resolution Panel may, before issuing any
directions referred to in sub-section (5),
(a) make such further enquiry, as it thinks fit; or
(b) cause any further enquiry to be made by any income-tax
authority and report the result of the same to it.
(8) The Dispute Resolution Panel may confirm, reduce or
enhance the variations proposed in the draft order so,
however, that it shall not set aside any proposed variation
or issue any direction under sub-section (5) for further
enquiry and passing of the assessment order.
Explanation.For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
declared that the power of the Dispute Resolution Panel to
enhance the variation shall include and shall be deemed
always to have included the power to consider any matter
arising out of the assessment proceedings relating to the
draft order, notwithstanding that such matter was raised or
not by the eligible assessee.
(9) If the members of the Dispute Resolution Panel differ in
opinion on any point, the point shall be decided according
to the opinion of the majority of the members.
(10) Every direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel
shall be binding on the Assessing Officer.
(11) No direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued
unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the
assessee and the Assessing Officer on such directions
which are prejudicial to the interest of the assessee or the
interest of the revenue, respectively.
(12) No direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued after
nine months from the end of the month in which the draft
order is forwarded to the eligible assessee.
(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 or section 153B, 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.
(14) The Board may make rules for the purposes of the
efficient functioning of the Dispute Resolution Panel and
expeditious disposal of the objections filed under sub-
section (2) by the eligible assessee.
48b[(14A)The provisions of this section shall not apply to any
assessment or reassessment order passed by the Assessing
Officer with the prior approval of the 49[Principal
Commissioner or] Commissioner as provided in sub-section
(12)of section 144BA.]
(15) For the purposes of this section,
(a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium
comprising of three 49[Principal Commissioners or]
Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for
this purpose;
(b) "eligible assessee" means,
(i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in
sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the
Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of
section 92CA; and
(ii) any foreign company.
History and object behind Section 144-C:-
18. Section 144-C was inserted in the Income Tax Act by
Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 with effect from 01-4-2009.
The reason for the insertion of Section 144-C was given in the
Notes on Clauses, Finance Bill, 2009, as under:
The subjects of transfer pricing audit and the taxation of
foreign companies are at nascent stage in India. Often the
Assessing Officer and the Transfer Pricing Officers tend to take
a conservative view. The correction of such view takes very
long time with the existing appellate structure.
With a view to provide speedy disposal, it is proposed to
amend the Income Tax Act so as to create an alternative
dispute resolution mechanism within the Income Tax
Department and accordingly Section 144C has been proposed
to be inserted so as to provide inter alia the Dispute Resolution
Panel as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.
19. It appears that from the time Section 144-C was
inserted, there have been some misgivings and
misunderstandings. The Government notified the Dispute
Resolution Panel Rules by S.O. No.2958 (E), dated
20-11-2009. Thereafter, an Explanatory Circular for Finance
(No.2) Act, 2009 was issued in Circular No.5/2010, dated
03-6-2010. Paragraph 45 of the said Circular explained the
new Section 144-C and the consequential amendments made
in the other Sections of the Act. While doing so, the Circular
dated 03-6-2010 wrongly indicated that the amendments,
made applicable with effect from 01-10-2009, will apply in
relation to assessment year 2010-11 and subsequent
assessment years.
20. In order to set right the above mistake, another
Circular bearing No.9/2013 was issued on 19-11-2013.
By this Circular it was clarified that Section 144-C is
applicable to any order which proposed to make variation in
income or loss returned by an eligible assessee on or after
01-10-2009, irrespective of the assessment year to which it
pertains.
21. Nevertheless, paragraphs 45.1 to 45.4 of Circular
No.5/2010, dated 03-6-2010, sought to explain the substance
of the provisions of Section 144-C. In brief, the contents of
paragraphs 45.1 to 45.4 can be summarised as follows:
(1) The Dispute Resolution Mechanism presently in
place, is time consuming and finality in high demand cases is
attained after long drawn litigation to the Supreme Court.
Therefore in order to address the concern of the multi-
national companies and to provide mechanism for speedy
disposal of their cases, this new provision was inserted to
facilitate expeditious resolution of disputes.
(2) The Dispute Resolution Panel is vested with the
same powers as are vested in a Court under the CPC.
This was done by amending Section 131(1).
(3) An order passed under Section 143(3) or Section 147
in pursuance of the directions of the DRP, is not made
appealable under Section 246A(1) to the Commissioner or
under Section 253(1) to the Appellate Tribunal. It means
a finality was sought to be attached to the directions issued
by the Dispute Resolution Panel.
(4) Since the Dispute Resolution Panel is provided as an
alternative mechanism for the resolution of disputes, the
choice is upon the assessee whether to file an objection
against the draft assessment order before the DRP or to
pursue the normal channel of filing of appeal against the
assessment order before the Commissioner (Appeals).
22. An interesting aspect to be taken note of from
Circular No.5/2010, dated 03-6-2010, is that as per
para 45.4 of the Circular, once the option of filing
an objection against the draft assessment order before the
DRP has been exercised, the assessee cannot withdraw the
objection and opt for the normal channel of filing an appeal
before CIT (Appeals). Irrespective of whether the
understanding of the Government in para 45.4 of Circular
No.5/2010 is correct or not, the Circular seems to proceed on
the footing that the availing of the remedy to go before the
DRP, would take away the right of appeal. Therefore, it is
clear that the option exercised by an assessee to avail
the alternative mechanism of dispute resolution, by
going before the DRP, cannot be rendered an exercise in
futility, by throwing the objections out, on flimsy
grounds.
23. As a matter of fact, the Central Board of Direct
Taxes had already issued a set of rules known as Income Tax
(Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009, in exercise of the
powers conferred by Section 144-C (14). Under these Rules,
provisions are made for the constitution of Dispute Resolution
Panels, the method of filling up vacancies arising in the
Panels, the establishment of a Secretariat attached to each
Panel etc. Rule 4(1) of these Rules stipulates that the
objections to a draft assessment order should be filed in
Form No.35A. The objections are to be accompanied by the
evidence relied upon by the assessee. As per Rule 5 of these
Rules, the Panel should issue a notice of hearing to the
assessee, as per Rule 6 the Panel should call for the records
and as per Rule 7 the Panel should hear both parties and
thereafter pass an order. Rule 9 empowers the Panel to call
for or permit any additional evidence.
24. Interestingly Rule 8 of these Rules stipulates that if
the eligible assessee dies or adjudicated as insolvent or
wound up (in the case of a limited company) after the filing of
objections, the proceedings before the Panel shall not abate.
25. With regard to the power of the Panel to issue
directions, Rule 10(2) makes it clear that the Panel need not
consider itself bound by the grounds set out in the objections,
but shall have the power to consider any matter or grounds
arising out of the proceedings.
26. Rule 13 confers a power upon the Panel, both
suo motu and on an application from the assessee or the
Assessing Officer, to rectify any mistake or error found in the
directions issued under sub-section (5).
27. Another important aspect of the Rules is that under
Rule 14 of these Rules, an appeal against the assessment
order passed in pursuance of the directions issued by the
Panel under sub-section (5), should be filed before the
Appellate Tribunal in Form No.36B. Therefore para 45.4 of
Circular No.5/2010, has to be understood to convey a limited
meaning that an assessee is not entitled to file an appeal
against the draft assessment order. But once a final
assessment order is made as per the directions issued by
DRP, the same can be the subject matter of an appeal before
the Tribunal.
Fact Situation on Hand:
28. Having seen the history and object of Section 144C
and the manner in which the Department had understood the
same, let us now come to the facts of the case on hand.
29. Admittedly the draft assessment order was passed
on 26-3-2014. According to the petitioner, it was received by
them only on 22-8-2014. But according to para 3 of the
proceedings dated 22-6-2015, they did not find any credible
evidence placed on record as to the date of service of the draft
order. Therefore the DRP has wondered in para 3 as to how it
could have taken five long months for the draft assessment
order to be served on the assessee.
30. But unfortunately, the Tribunal, in our considered
view, misdirected the above question to the assessee. We have
already extracted Section 144C. Sub-section (1) of Section
144C makes it mandatory for the Assessing Officer to forward
a draft assessment order to the assessee. What is the
meaning of the expression forward appearing in
sub-section (1) ?
31. The answer to this question would depend upon the
consequences that would flow out of the compliance or
non-compliance with the obligation to forward. Sub-section
(2) of Section 144C obliges the assessee to file objections
within 30 days, before the DRP. While sub-section (1) which
speaks of the obligation of the Assessing Officer, uses the
expression forward, sub-section (2) which speaks of the
entitlement of the assessee, uses the phrase on receipt of the
draft order. The word receipt is used twice in sub-section
(2). Sub-section (2) begins with the words on receipt of the
draft order, the eligible assessee shall, within 30 days of the
receipt by him of the draft order.
32. Therefore the word forward appearing in
sub-section (1) cannot have a meaning that is completely
contrary to the words and expressions found in
sub-section (2). Unless the word forward is understood to
mean actual service of the copy of the draft assessment order
on the assessee, the word receipt found in sub-section (2)
would lose its meaning.
33. Therefore it is clear that the obligation on the part of
the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) is to serve the
draft assessment order on the assessee. It is not enough for
the Assessing Officer merely to pass a draft assessment order
and keep it in his almirah. It is necessary for him to send the
same in a manner known to law and serve the same on the
assessee. The period of 30 days available to the assessee to
file objections, would start running only from the date on
which the assessee receives the draft assessment order.
34. In the case on hand, the Department has no doubt
produced a letter dated 26-3-2014, by which the draft
assessment order was purportedly forwarded to the assessee.
But it is not indicated anywhere as to how the service of the
same on the assessee was sought to be effected.
In an Additional Counter Affidavit filed by the Joint
Commissioner of Income Tax, she has indicated that the office
copy of the forwarding letter dated 26-3-2014 contains an
endorsement of the Notice Server to the effect that the door of
the petitioner-companys office was locked. Therefore the
Assessing Officer seeks to contend that the service of the draft
assessment order should be deemed to be complete.
35. But we fail to understand as to why the draft
assessment order was sought to be sent through a Notice
Server, rather than by post. Interestingly the endorsement of
the Notice Server, by name Venkataiah does not even contain
a date. Even the Tear off acknowledgment slip that contains
the endorsement of the Notice Server on the reverse, does not
bear a date. On the contrary, the Tear off acknowledgment
slip relating to the copy of the draft assessment order actually
served on the writ petitioner, contains the date 22-8-2014.
Therefore the claim made in the Additional Counter Affidavit
by the Assessing Officer that the draft assessment order was
sent on 26-3-2014, is completely contrary to truth.
36. Moreover the letter dated 15-4-2016 sent by the Tax
Recovery Officer (Former Secretary, DRP, Hyderabad) to the
Assessing Officer, which is filed along with the Additional
Counter Affidavit of the respondents, discloses that the
objections filed by the petitioner in Form 35A was forwarded
to DRP, Bengaluru on 31-3-2015. As per the proceedings
dated 31-3-2015, a copy of which is filed by the Department
itself, the DRP had time up to August, 2015 to issue
directions under sub-section (5) on the objections filed by the
petitioner to the draft assessment order.
37. Therefore it is clear (1) that even as per the Tear off
acknowledgment slip produced by the Department, the draft
assessment order was received by the assessee only on
22-8-2014 (2) that even as per the Secretary of the DRP,
Hyderabad, the time prescribed under sub-section (12) of
Section 144-C, was to expire only in June or August, 2015
and (3) that therefore the stand taken by DRP, Bengaluru in
its impugned communication that the jurisdiction to pass
orders lapsed on 31-12-2014 was completely contrary to facts
as well as law.
38. Once it is found that the order of the DRP dated
22-6-2015 rejecting the objections as incapable of being
considered, to be contrary to law, then the next question that
arises for consideration is as to what would follow logically as
a consequence of the same.
39. On first principles of law, if the rejection of
an appeal or a set of objections by the Appellate or the
Original Authority, on pure technicalities (and not on merits)
is found to be not in accordance with law, then the normal
course to be adopted by a Court would be to send the matter
back to the same Authority for a consideration on merits.
Therefore once we find that the DRP, Bengaluru had wrongly
rejected the objections of the petitioner without going into the
merits, the logical consequence of such a finding would be to
set aside the order of rejection of the DRP and to send the
matter back to the DRP for a consideration of the objections
on merits and in accordance with law.
40. But in this case, sub-section (12) of Section 144C,
on the face of it, appears to pose an obstacle. Under
sub-section (12), no direction can be issued by the DRP under
sub-section (5), after the expiry of nine months from the end
of the month in which the draft assessment order was
forwarded to the eligible assessee. In this case we have found
the date of forwarding of the draft assessment order to be
22-8-2014. Hence, the period stipulated under sub-section
(12) would expire by 31-5-2015. But the DRP passed an order
on 22-6-2015 holding that it had lost jurisdiction to pass an
order on 31-12-2014 itself. Even though the date mentioned
is not correct, the fact remains that the DRP could not have
issued any direction after 31-5-2015, even on undisputed
facts.
41. The question that then arises is as to whether this
Court can now issue a direction to the DRP to consider the
matter on merits and pass an order.
42. While construing the provisions relating to
limitation, the Supreme Court has made it clear that if the
Statute has stipulated even the upper time limit up to which
a delay in filing an appeal could be condoned by an Appellate
Authority, the Courts cannot direct the Appellate Authorities
to consider the applications for condonation of the delay of a
period exceeding the upper limit. It has also been held that
even the Court cannot condone such a delay. Therefore a
doubt arises as to whether the prescription contained in sub-
section (12) is mandatory that goes to the root of the
jurisdiction of the DRP to pass an order. If what is prescribed
by sub-section (12) is a jurisdictional issue, then the Court
cannot ask the DRP to do something for which they have no
jurisdiction.
43. But the bar under sub-section (12) of Section 144C
does not appear to be one that goes to the root of the
jurisdictional issue. The reasons are two-fold. The first is that
as per the scheme of Section 144C, the DRP is constituted as
an alternative mechanism for resolution of disputes.
Therefore it is conferred with the powers of a Civil Court to
take evidence, hold an enquiry and even correct mistakes or
errors suo motu or on an application of either of the parties.
The intention behind the insertion of Section 144C is to
provide a mechanism for speedy resolution of disputes and to
ensure finality to litigation. Therefore the bar under
sub-section (12) cannot be treated as one going to the root of
the matter.
44. The second reason as to why we opine so is that the
Supreme Court itself has understood Section 144C to be of
such nature. In Additional CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd.,
decided on 07-9-2009 and reported in (2010) 188 Taxmann
303, the Supreme Court disposed of an appeal filed by the
Revenue, directing the authorities to take recourse to the
alternative dispute resolution mechanism suggested under
Section 144C. Though the said order of the Supreme Court is
a brief order, which did not lay down any ratio, the same
gives an indication as to how to understand the purport of
Section 144C. The order of the Supreme Court in the said
case reads as follows:
3. We are of the view that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, particularly when the High Court
has remitted the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer from
whose order an appeal is pending before the CIT (A), it would
be in the interest of both sides to resort to alternative dispute
resolution mechanism suggested in the budget of 2009
(see Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961). It is made
clear that the competent authority will not reject the
application herein made by the assessee on the ground that
the proposal has come after the cut-off date.
45. Therefore we are of the considered view that it is
possible for this Court to set aside the order of the Dispute
Resolution Panel and remit the matter back to them for
a consideration on merits, inspite of the fact that the period
stipulated in sub-section (12) would have expired by
31-5-2015.
46. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, the
order of the Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru, dated
22-6-2015 is set aside and the DRP, Bengaluru is directed to
take up Form 35A filed by the petitioner along with the
annexures and the evidence for a consideration on merits.
The DRP shall give opportunity of hearing to both parties,
follow the procedure prescribed in Section 144C and issue
appropriate directions under sub-section (5), within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. As a consequence of our setting aside the DRPs order
dated 22-6-2015, the final assessment order passed by the
Assessing Officer on 28-8-2015 is set aside. The Assessing
Officer shall pass a final assessment order, after and on the
basis of the directions issued by the DRP, as per our
directions. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
writ petition shall stand closed. There will be no order as to
costs.
47. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________________
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
__________________________ ANIS, J.
31st August, 2016.