Draft Assessment – Bombay High Court Judgment
The draft assessment request on 30th March, 2015 was even with the choice for the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v/s Income Tax Officer and Others reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC), wherein it has been set out that at whatever point a reviving notification is issued under Section 148 of the Act.
In the present case of draft assessment , as the issue includes the procurements concerning exchange estimating cases, the time of restriction to discard an Assessment subsequent to reviving notification as gave in fourth stipulation to sub-section (2) of Section 153 of the Act is two years from the end of the budget year in which the reviving notification was served. In this situation, the reprimanded reviving notification was issued on sixth February, 2013 and the reasons in backing were supplied just on nineteenth March, 2015.
Thus, when the Revenue knew at all times that the period to pass a request of reassessment on the upbraided reviving notification dated sixth February 2013 would lapse on 31st March, 2015. Be that as it may, there is no reason expected with respect to the Revenue to tastefully clarify the postponement.
The main reason made out in the testimony dated third September, 2015 by the Assessing Officer was that the issue of draft assessment was pending before the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and it was when the TPO had passed his request on exchange evaluating were the explanations behind reviving gave to the Petitioner. Other than the recording of explanations behind issuing the reviving notification is to be on the premise of the Assessing Officer’s reasons. The TPO’s reasons on benefits much after the issue of the reviving notification does not have any bearing on serving the reasons recorded upon the gathering whose evaluation is being looked to be revived.
Indeed, on 23rd December 2015 the Revenue again looked for a time. At that stage, we demonstrated that in perspective of the gross certainties of this case, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax would take genuine note of the above and in the wake of inspecting the truths, if important, make fitting healing move to guarantee that an assesses is not made to languish over no shortcoming on its part.
In any case, the Assessing Officer continues to pass a draft assessment request without managing the complaints recorded by the Petitioner. We could have on that date or considerably prior passed a request putting aside the draft appraisal request dated 30th March 2015 as it was gone without discarding the complaints. Subsequently, plainly without ward. In any case of draft assessment, we were of the perspective that in spite of the fact that this gives off an impression of being a gross instance of pestering an Assessee, the Principal Commissioner would observe and embrace healing procedures.