Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. However, in Paragraph 5.2, the Impugned Order also states that the impugned order was a Draft Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act by proposing to add the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.19,48,61,785/- (Rs.14,79,76,111/- + 4,68,85,673/-) to the total income of the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the option given to the petitioner in the Income Tax Portal wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner could only file appeal in Form 35.

9. It is therefore submitted that the Impugned Order has been passed contrary to Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and is therefore liable to be quashed.

21. By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Paragraph Nos.6 to 8 of the counter filed in the petitioners' sister concern/company case and in the the present case. They are reproduced below:-

W.P.No.24133 of 2021 W.P.No.1575 of 2020
7. It is submitted that from the 6. I submit that in reply to para above, it is clear that what 8, while assessing the total was intended to be passed income of the assessee, the was a Draft Order u/s.144C Assessing Officer made of the Act only. However, additions on various issues, due to some one of the issues being miscommunication and adjustment on transfer inadvertence, order pricing. During the course u/s.143(3) of the Act was of assessment proceedings issued and therefore under Section 143(3) of the computation sheet, demand Act, while uploading the u/s.156 were generated and draft order, the Assessing notice for penalty also Officer inadvertently chose issued. It is submitted that assessment order instead of there was absolutely no draft assessment order intention on the part of the under Section 144C(1) of respondents to pass a Final the Act in the Income-tax Assessment Order and deny Department software (ITBA), the petitioner its consequently the demand right/choice u/s.144C of the notice was automatically Act. It is only due to issued by the 'system'. This inadvertence, for which the being a mere technical respondents most sincerely lapse, the assessee could apologize that in the have approached the impugned order instead of Assessing Officer or the _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis mentioning order u/s.143(3) appellate authority for read with Section 144B and recourse, instead the due to this mistake, the assessee filed writ before the further mistakes of Hon'ble High Court.
"This is a draft order passed as per the provisions of section 144C read with _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sec. 92C(4) of the Act makes it mandatory for the Assessing Officer to adopt the adjustments proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer and there is no discretion left with the Assessing Officer. The assessee company is hereby allowed thirty days time from the date of receipt of this order to file its acceptance to the above variations made to its total income as per the return of income filed by it or to file its objections, if any before the Dispute Resolution Panel, as per the provisions of section 144C(2) of the Act, failing which the final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act shall be passed assessing the total income of the assessee company as proposed herein above."