Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The specific contention of the respective petitioners is that the Finance Act, 2020 introduced a amendment to Section 144C of the Act _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24230 & 24235 of 2021 w.e.f 01.04.2020. It is submitted that as a result of the amendment, the respective petitioner became “eligible assessee” within the meaning of Section 144C(15)(b)(ii). It is therefore, submitted that the petitioners being “non-residents”, ought to have been served with a Draft Assessment Order in accordance with the provision of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though the returns filed by the respective petitioners related to the Assessment Year 2019-2020 before the date of assessment.
and are reproduced below: -
Circular No.5 of 2010 dated Circular No. 09/2013 dated 03.06.2010 19.11.2013 “45.5Applicability: These “45.5. Applicability: Section 144C amendments have been made has been inserted with effect from applicable with effect from 1 st 1st April, 2009. Accordingly, the October, 2009 and will accordingly Assessing Officer is required to apply in relation to assessment year forward a draft assessment order to 2010-11 and subsequent assessment the eligible assessee, if he proposes years. The Dispute Resolution Panel to make, on or after the 1 st day of Rules have been notified by S.O. No. October, 2009, any variation in the 2958 (E) dated 20 th November, income or loss returned which is 2009.” prejudicial to the interest of such In the above extracted Para 45.5 assessee. In other words section there has been an inadvertent error in 144C is applicable to any order stating the applicability of the which proposes to make variation provisions of section 144C inserted in income or loss returned by an st vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 that eligible assessee, on or after 1 amendments will apply in relation to October, 2009 irrespective of the the assessment year 2010- 11 and assessment year to which it subsequent assessment years. pertains. Amendments to other Accordingly, para 45.5 is replaced sections of the Income-tax Act with the following: referred to in para 45.3 of the circular 5/2010 dated 3 rd June, 2010 shall also apply from 1st October, 2009” _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24230 & 24235 of 2021

24. The learned Single Judge of this Court Vijay Television (P) Ltd., vs. Dispute Resolution Panel &Ors, had concluded that there was a violation of Section 144(C) of the Act, while passing final order of assessment and therefore such order cannot be corrected by way of corrigendum dated 15.04.2013.

25. The Court in Vijay Television (P) Ltd., vs. Dispute Resolution Panel &Ors, has referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad, 280 ITR 541. The Court was influenced by Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2009 which preceded to Finance (No.2) Act, _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24230 & 24235 of 2021 2009, wherein it was stated that Section 144C of the Act would take effect from 01.10.2009 and therefore it was held Circular No.5/10 issued by CBDT stating that Section 144C would apply only from the assessment year 2010-11 and subsequent years and not for the assessment year 2008-09 was held contrary to the express language in Section 144C(1) and therefore found the view of the Revenue unacceptable.

47. The respective petitioners can be given right to agitate before the Dispute Resolution Panel in terms of Section 144C(2) r/w 3 to (13) of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

48. In my view, the respective petitioners are therefore entitled to redress their respective greivance before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under the framework of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.