2014 (6) TMI 540 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Validity of corrigendum issued to the order passed u/s 144C - TPO instead of passing a provisional order or a draft assessment order, has passed a final assessment order dated 26.03.2013 – In the corrigendum it was only stated that the order passed on 26.03.2013 under Section 143C of the Act has to be read and treated as a draft assessment order as per Section 143C read with Section 93CA (4) read with Section 143 (3) of the Act - Held that:- In and by the order dated 15.04.2013, the second respondent granted thirty days’ time to enable the assessee to file their objections. On receipt of the corrigendum dated 15.04.2013, the assessee company approached the first respondent, but the first respondent declined to issue any direction to the assessment officer on the ground that the first respondent has got jurisdiction only to entertain such an appeal if the order passed by the second respondent is a pre-assessment order - the first respondent declined to entertain the objections raised by the assessee company on the ground that the order passed is not a draft assessment order, rather it is a final order.

Relying upon Deepak Agro Foods v. State of Rajasthan and others [2008 (7) TMI 553 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - if an order is passed beyond the statutory period prescribed, such order is a nullity and has no force of law - the period for assessment proceedings expired and fresh assessment orders have been issued by anti-dating it – the High Court ought not to have remanded the matter back to the assessment officer and by doing so, the statutory period prescribed for completion of assessment has been extended by conferring jurisdiction upon the AO, which he otherwise lacked on the expiry of the period - there is a distinction between an order which is a nullity and an order which is irregular and illegal - Where an authority making order lacks inherent jurisdiction, such an order will be null and void ab initio, as the defect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and strikes at his very authority to pass any order and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of the parties.

Where there is an omission on the part of the AO to follow the mandatory procedures prescribed in the Act, such an omission cannot be termed as a mere procedural irregularity and it cannot be cured - the website of the department indicate the amount determined by the second respondent payable by the company inspite of issuance of the corrigendum on 15.04.2013 as a tax due amount - while issuing the corrigendum, the second respondent did not even withdraw the taxable amount determined by him or updated the status in the website - such an order passed by the second respondent can only be construed as a final order passed in violation of the statutory provisions of the Act - The corrigendum dated 15.04.2013 is also beyond the period prescribed for limitation - Such a defect or failure on the part of the second respondent to adhere to the statutory provisions is not a curable defect by virtue of the corrigendum dated 15.04.2013 - the respondents cannot be allowed to develop their own case – Decided against Assessee.