IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT

M.S. SONAK & VALMIKI MENEZES, JJ.

Birla Furukawa Fibre Optics (P) Ltd. v. National Faceless Assessment Centre

Writ Petition No. 159 of 2024

16 April, 2024

Petitioners by: Shivan Desai with Tahira Menezes i/b Lexicon Law Partners, Samved Pradhan, and through V.C. Ajay Vazirani, Dhiren Durane and Sahil Namavati, Advocates.

Respondent No. 2. by: Amira Razaq, Standing Counsel (through V. C.).

Heard Mr Shivan Desai, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms Amira Razaq, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 2.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioners challenge the impugned final assessment order dated 8-11-2023 and the impugned demand notice dated 8-11-2023 on the ground that the impugned order and the impugned demand notice could not have been made without the issue of a draft assessment order as required under section 144C (1) of the Income Tax Act.

4. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the impugned assessment order and the consequential demand notice were issued without complying with the provisions of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act. There is no draft assessment order, and the assessee was not granted an opportunity to object to the issuance of the final assessment order. He submitted that the assessment orders have been quashed and set aside by this Court and other High Courts in similar circumstances.

5. Mr. Desai relied on the following decisions in support of the grounds raised in the petition.

(1) Exxon Mobil Company Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT WP No. 451/2022, dt. 18-4-2022.

(2) International Air Transport Association v. DCIT WP (L) 351/2016, dt. 18-2-2016 : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1593 (Bom-HC);

(3) Principal CIT v. Andrew Telecommunication Pvt. Ltd. TXA No. 11/2017, dt. 16-7-2018 :2018 TaxPub(DT) 5190 (Bom-HC).