Bombay High Court
Omniactive Health Technologies ... vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax ... on 4 March, 2024
Author: K.R.Shriram
Bench: K. R. Shriram, Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-OS:3647-DB
1/4 493-oswp-474-2024-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 474 OF 2024
OmniActive Health Technologies Limited,
T-8b, 5th Floor, Phoenix House, A Wing, Phoenix
Mill Compound, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013, PAN:
AADCP2914Q. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department
National Faceless Assessment Centre,
Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi 110 003.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-
8(2)(1), Mumbai,
having address at Aayakar Bhavan,
Maharishi Karve Road, Mujmbai 400 020.
3. Dispute Resolution Panel,
Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, North Block, New
Delhi 110 001. ...Respondents
Mr. Paras Savla, with Mr. Pratik Poddar & Ms. Akshita Bhandari,
for Petitioner.
Mr. P. A. Narayanan, for Respondents-Revenue.
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATED :
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per K.R.Shriram, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties,
taken up for final hearing.
2. Petitioner is impugning the assessment order dated 21st
November 2023 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 143(3)
Gaikwad RD
2/4 493-oswp-474-2024-J.doc
read with Section 144C(3) read with 144B of the Income Tax act,
1961 ("the Act") along with consequential notice of demand under
Section 156 of the Act and penalty notice under Section 270A of the
Act.
3. Petitioner's case is that Section 144C(2) of the Act, inter alia,
requires Assessee, should he to choose to file reference before the
Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to file such objection within 30 days
from the receipt of Draft Assessment Order. The section also requires
Assessee to file a copy of the reference with the Assessing Officer
("AO") within the time limit prescribed. Section 144C(4) of the Act
requires AO to pass a final order within one month from the end of
the month in which the period of filing of objections before DRP and
AO expires.
4. According to Petitioner, though Section 144C of the Act
requires Petitioner to communicate the objection filed before the DRP
to the AO, due to oversight/inadvertence Petitioner did not inform
the AO within 30 days period prescribed under Sub-section (2) of
Section 144C of the Act that it had filed objection by way of an email
dated 23rd October 2023. The AO unaware of Petitioner having filed
objection before the DRP after expiry of prescribed period of 30 days
proceeded to pass the assessment order dated 21 st November 2023.
Petitioner informed the AO only on 28 th November 2023 about having
filed objections with the DRP. Mr. Savla states by then time the
Gaikwad RD
3/4 493-oswp-474-2024-J.doc
damage was done and the assessment order was passed. Mr. Savla
also is very fair and candid in stating that the AO cannot be blamed
for having passed the assessment order.
5. In our view, since Petitioner had already filed a reference
raising its objections to the DRP within the 30 days period and
Section 144C(4) of the Act requires the AO to pass a final order
including the view expressed by the DRP, we set aside the order dated
21st November 2023 of the AO impugned in this petition. We find
support for this view in Sulzer Pumps India Pvt. Ltd. v Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2) & Ors. 1 We shall also
observe that the AO cannot be faulted for passing the impugned
order. At the same time, the AO will also have the benefits of
considering the views of the DRP while passing a fresh assessment
order.
6. The undertaking of Mr. Savla on behalf of Petitioner to
withdraw within two weeks from today the appeal filed before the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) impugning the assessment
order is accepted.
7. Accordingly, Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a),
which reads as under:
"a. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in
1 Writ Petition(L) No.15811 of 2021, dtd. 27th October 2021 (unreported).
Gaikwad RD
4/4 493-oswp-474-2024-J.doc
the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India calling for records of the Petitioner's case pertaining to
Assessment Year 2020-21, and after examining the validity,
legality and propriety thereof,
(i) quash and set aside the Final assessment order
dated 21.11.2023 passed by Respondent no. 1 under
section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act
(Exhibit D1) along with consequential notice of
demand under section 156 of the Act (Exhibit D2) and
penalty notice under section 270A of the Act (Exhibit
D3);
(ii) remit the matter to Respondent no. 3 i.e. the
DRP to consider objections raised by the Petitioner and
issue Directions as per law."
8. The AO shall take further steps in the matter after the DRP
passes its order on the objection filed by Petitioner, in accordance
with law.
9. Petition disposed.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Gaikwad RD
Date: 06/03/2024 10:48:15
