[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Fugro Survey India Private Limited vs The National Faceless Assessment ... on 10 February, 2026

Author: B. P. Colabawalla

Bench: B. P. Colabawalla

  2026:BHC-OS:4160-DB


                                                                                        4 wp3710-24.doc



       Digitally                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
       signed by
       TRUSHA
TRUSHA TUSHAR                             ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
TUSHAR MOHITE
MOHITE Date:
       2026.02.13
       11:26:58
       +0530
                                                  WRIT PETITION NO.3710 OF 2024


                    Fugro Survey India Private Limited                                    .. Petitioner

                              Versus

                    The National Faceless Assessment Centre and Ors.                      .. Respondents

                         Mr.Dharan V. Gandhi, with Ms.Aanchal Vyas, Advocates for the
                         Petitioner.

                         Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents.

                                       CORAM:               B. P. COLABAWALLA &
                                                            FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

                                       DATE:            FEBRUARY 10, 2026

                    P. C.

1. The above Writ Petition is filed to challenge the Order passed by

Respondent No.2 (the DRP) in so far as it records the finding (a) that the

Petitioner had failed to intimate the Assessing Officer about the filing of the

objections before the DRP; and (b) the objections filed by the Petitioner are

taken as non-est for failing to adhere to the requirements of clause (b) of

Section 144C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the I.T.Act").

FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Mohite

4 wp3710-24.doc

2. Mr.Gandhi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Petitioner, submitted that in the facts of the present case, the Order was

passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92(CA)(3) of the

Income Tax Act proposing and / or recommending certain adjustments to the

income of the Petitioner. Pursuant to the recommendation of the TPO,

Respondent No.1 (NFAC) on 14th September 2023 passed a draft assessment

order under Section 144C(1) of the I.T.Act and served the same on the

Petitioner. As per the provisions of Section 144C(2), the Petitioner, on 13 th

October 2023, filed its objections to the draft assessment order with

Respondent No.2 (DRP). On the same very day, i.e. on 13 th October 2023, the

Petitioner also addressed an email to the I.T.Authorities as well as a letter to

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the Petitioner had filed its objections before

the DRP. According to Mr.Gandhi, once this was the case, the 1 st Respondent

could not have proceeded to pass any final assessment order. However,

contrary to the provisions of Section 144C, on 26 th October 2023, the final

assessment order was passed by Respondent No.1 assessing the total income

of the Petitioner at Rs.85.04 crores against the returned income of 36.46

crores. In other words, by the final assessment order, an addition of Rs.48.58

crores was made on account of the Transfer Pricing Adjustment.

FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Mohite

4 wp3710-24.doc

3. Mr.Gandhi submitted that being aggrieved by the final

assessment order passed on 26 th October 2023, the Petitioner approached the

CIT (Appeals) on 23rd November 2023. This Appeal is pending. One of the

grounds in the Appeal (ground no.2) is that the final assessment order could

not have been passed since the objections of the Petitioner to the draft

assessment order were pending before the DRP and the same was duly

intimated to the Assessing Officer.

4. Mr.Gandhi submitted that when the Petitioner's objections to

the draft assessment order came up before the DRP, since the final

assessment order was already passed, the DRP ought to have simplicitor not

entertained the objections by holding that it had become functus officio

[because the final assessment order was already passed]. The DRP could not

have given any directions or a finding that the Petitioner had not intimated

the Assessing Officer about the objections being filed before the DRP. He

submitted that once the final assessment order is passed under Section

144C(4), the DRP becomes functus officio and thereafter, cannot pass any

directions or give any findings. In this regard, Mr.Gandhi relied upon the

decision of this Court in the case of Undercarriage and Tractor Parts Pvt.Ltd.

vs. Dispute Resolution Panel - 3 and Ors. [Writ Petition No.2387 of 2020

decided on 12th September 2023].

FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Mohite

4 wp3710-24.doc

5. Accordingly, Mr.Gandhi submitted that the observations made

by the DRP, regarding the Petitioner not intimating the assessing officer

about the objections filed before the DRP, ought to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, Mr.Sharma, the learned Advocate appearing

on behalf of the Revenue, relying upon the Affidavit in Reply filed in the

above Writ Petition, submitted that in the present case, intimation of filing

the objections before the DRP had to be informed to the Faceless Assessing

Officer who had passed the Draft Assessment Order. According to

Mr.Sharma, it is the admitted position that no such intimation was given to

the Faceless Assessing Officer. He submitted that as an after thought, the

Petitioner, in the present Petition, has stated that it was unable to inform the

Faceless Assessing Officer on the portal due to some technical glitch and

therefore it informed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Mr.Sharma

submitted that apart from making this bald averment in the Petition, there is

nothing on record to show that the portal was not functioning when the

Petitioner informed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer about the filing of

their objections before the DRP. Consequently, Mr.Sharma submitted that

the finding rendered by the DRP were fully justified, and hence, required no

interference by this Court.

FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Mohite

4 wp3710-24.doc

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also

perused the papers and proceedings in the above Writ Petition. The facts as

narrated by us above are not disputed. It is not in dispute that initially, after

the order was passed by the TPO, Respondent No.1 passed a draft assessment

order under Section 144C(1) of the I.T. Act. To this draft order, the

Petitioner filed its objections before Respondent No.2. The Petitioner also

addressed an email to Respondent No.2 as well as Respondent No.3 (JAO)

intimating them that objections have been filed before the DRP to the Draft

Assessment Order. After this, the final assessment order was passed by

Respondent No.1 on 26th October 2023. From this final assessment order, an

Appeal is also filed by the Petitioner before the CIT (Appeals), and which is

pending.

8. In these facts, we are clearly of the view that once a final

assessment order was passed, even assuming for the sake of argument

wrongly, the DRP could not have issued any directions and / or given any

finding, as was sought to be done in the impugned order passed by the DRP.

We say this because in the scheme of Section 144C, the DRP can issue

directions only when the assessment is pending. This is quite clear from the

provisions of Section 144C(5), 144C(6), 144C(7), 144C(8), 144C(11), 144C(12)

FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Mohite

4 wp3710-24.doc

and 144C(13). When one reads these provisions, it becomes clear that the

directions to be given by the DRP are only when the assessment proceedings

are pending and not after final assessment order is passed. Once the final

assessment order is passed, the DRP can issue no directions or give any

finding. In the view that we take, we are supported by the decision of this

Court in the case of Undercarriage and Tractor Parts Pvt.Ltd. (Supra). In the

facts of that case, before the DRP passed any directions, a final assessment

order was passed by the Assessing Officer. Despite this, the DRP proceeded

to pass certain directions. Based on the directions given by the DRP, the

Assessing Officer passed a fresh assessment order which was challenged

before this Court. It is in this light that this Court observed that the DRP

could give directions only in pending assessment proceedings, and once the

assessment order was passed, rightly or wrongly, the assessment proceedings

came to an end. Once they came to an end, the DRP had no power to pass

any directions under sub section (5) of section 144C of the I.T. Act. The

relevant portion of this decision reads thus:

"10 Section 144C(5) of the Act provides "the DRP shall, in a case where any objection is received under sub-section 2, issue such directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment". Therefore, it is quite obvious, when it says "..... to enable him to complete the assessment", it presupposes pending assessment proceedings.

Sub-section 6 of Section 144C of the Act provides "the DRP shall issue the directions referred to in sub-section 5, after

FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Mohite

4 wp3710-24.doc

considering the following .....". The directions referred to in sub- section 5 are those directions for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment. Therefore, this also presupposes pending assessment proceedings.

Sub-section 7 of Section 144C of the Act provides "the DRP may, before issuing any directions referred to in sub-section

5.....". These directions are for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment, which also presupposes pending assessment proceedings.

Sub-section 8 of Section 144C of the Act provides "the DRP may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order ......" which means the assessment proceedings are still pending.

Sub-section 11 of Section 144C of the Act provides "no direction under sub-section 5 shall be issued unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee and the Assessing Officer on such directions which are prejudicial to the interest of the assessee or the interest of the revenue, respectively" which also presupposes pending assessment proceedings.

Similarly under sub-section 12 of Section 144C of the Act which says "no direction under sub-section 5 shall be issued after nine months from the end of the month in which the draft order is forwarded to the eligible assessee"; and

Under sub-section 13 of Section 144C of the Act which says "upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section 5, the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete ..... the assessment .....".

Therefore, the DRP could give directions only in pending assessment proceedings. Once assessment order is passed, rightly or wrongly, the assessment proceedings come to an end. Therefore, the DRP would have no power to pass any directions contemplated under sub-section 5 of Section 144C of the Act. Act."

9. The SLP against this Order is also dismissed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court on 2nd May 2025.

FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Mohite

4 wp3710-24.doc

10. After analyzing the provisions of Section 144C as well as the law

laid down by this Court in Undercarriage and Tractor Parts Pvt.Ltd. (Supra),

we are of the view that the DRP ought to have simplicitor dismissed the

objections of the Petitioner on the sole ground that a final assessment order

has already been passed and ought not to have given any finding in relation

to any matters relating thereto. We, accordingly, direct that the findings

given in relation to whether the objections filed by the Petitioner before the

DRP were intimated to the Assessing Officer, or otherwise, were wholly