TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as the Assessing Officer on 16.03.2021 i.e., within the prescribed period of 30 days. Respondent No.1 AO clearly fell in error in neither considering the objections nor awaiting directions from the DRP and has erroneously proceeded to pass the impugned Assessment Order dated 26.04.2021, which is clearly in violation and contravention to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144(C)5 to (C)13 of the IT Act and without awaiting further directions from the DRP and as such, the impugned Assessment Order dated 26.04.2021 deserves to be quashed. Petitioner is also right in his contention that during the pendency of the present petition, the DRP has passed the impugned order at Annexure Q dated 24.11.2021 disposing of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns under Section 144C(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the 'IT Act'), both before the respondent No.1 / Assessing Officer as well as before respondent No.3 / DRP within prescribed period of 30 days. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the petitioner complying with the provisions contained in Section 144C(2)(b) of the IT Act and filing objections within the prescribed period before both the Assessing Officer as well as the DRP, the respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned Assessment Order without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Sections 144C and 144C(5) to C(13) of the IT Act and without awaiting directions from the DRP and consequently, the impugned Assessment Order dated 26.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 144C(2)(b) of the IT Act. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner filed objections before both the DRP as well as the Assessing Officer on 16.03.2021 i.e., within the prescribed period of 30 days. 7. Under these circumstances, respondent No.1 Assessing Officer clearly fell in error in neither considering the objections nor awaiting directions from the DRP and has erroneously proceeded to pass the impugned Assessment Order dated 26.04.2021, which is clearly in violation and contravention to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144(C)5 to (C)13 of the IT Act and without awaiting further directions from the DRP and as such, the impugned Assessment Order dated 26.04.2021 deserves to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
