ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED V. THE UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/10427/2014

AI Insights

The case involves Allianz Cornhill Information Services Private Limited, a 100% export-oriented unit engaged in software development, which challenged an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner argued that the order was issued beyond the permissible time frame under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates completion of assessments within a specific period following directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP had earlier directed the assessing officer to complete the assessment based on their findings, but the final order was passed later than the stipulated deadline. The court examined whether the delay in passing the order affected its validity and whether Section 144C is a procedural or substantive provision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 687227 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Raza Textiles Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Rampur, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Appollo Tyres Ltd., Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Central Processing Centre and Others, Turner International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(2), New Delhi, Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi & others, Joseph Kuruvila v. Commissioner of Income Tax, A.M.Zainalabdeen Musaliar v. Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: M GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Dispute Resolution Panel; Export oriented unit; Income Tax; Software Technology Park; Transfer pricing
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 92CA; 144C; 10B

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 1ST POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 PETITIONER/S: ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, TECNO PARK, TRIVANDRUM, REP BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, MR KRISHNA RAMACHANDRAN BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE(DEPARTMEN OF REVENUE)NORHT BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THIRUANANTHAPURAM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-695003 3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-695003 BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SR.SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.12.2023, THE COURT ON 22.12.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..2.. “CR” JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the assessing authority under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), on the ground that it is issued beyond the period fixed under Sub-section (13) of Section 144C of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows; The petitioner, an assessee on the rolls of the third respondent under the provisions of the Act, is engaged in the business of software development services and business process & computer services to its associated enterprises. The petitioner is a 100% export-oriented unit (EOU) and in connection with its business activities, they obtained registration as a new Software Technology Park of India (STPI) unit in WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..3.. TechnoPark, Thiruvananthapuram. Being a 100% export-oriented unit, the petitioner was claiming the benefit of deduction envisaged under Section 10B of the Act. Subject to the compliance of the conditions under Section 10B of the Act, the said deduction was to run consecutively for a period of ten years. For the assessment year 2009-10, the petitioner filed return on 29.09.2009 declaring a total income of Rs.66,66,453/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices dated 01.09.2010 and 23.06.2011 under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act respectively were issued. Since the petitioner had entered into international transactions with its associated enterprises, the file was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA of the Act to determine the Arm's Length Price (for short, “ALP”) in respect of such transactions. The Transfer Pricing Officer, vide order dated 24.01.2013, made a total adjustment of WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..4.. Rs.6,03,55,394/- in the international transactions entered into by the petitioner. The assessing officer issued Ext.P1 draft assessment order dated 21.03.2013 in accordance with sub- section (1) of Section 144C of the Act. On receipt of Ext.P1 notice, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 reply before the Dispute Resolution Panel (for short, “DRP”) as well as the assessing officer in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 144C of the Act. After considering the objections filed by the petitioner, the DRP issued Ext.P3 directions on 09.12.2013 to the assessing authority in accordance with sub-section (4) of Section 144C of the Act, on receipt of which, the assessing authority passed Ext.P4 assessment order dated 27.03.2014 in terms of sub-section (13) of Section 144C of the Act. According to the petitioner, the consequential order ought to have been passed on or before 31.01.2014 as per sub- section (13) of Section 144C of the Act, wherein WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..5.. it is stipulated that upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the assessing officer shall complete the assessment, in conformity with the directions, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153, without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. It is alleged that on a reading of Ext.P4 order itself, it is clear that the order has been passed beyond the time prescribed in sub-section (13) of Section 144C of the Act. It is further alleged that it could be seen from Ext.P4 that a substantial portion of the liability arises out of the direction of the DRP and the consequent decision of the assessing authority to deny the benefit of Section 10B of the Act to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, they are entitled to deduction in respect of the profit WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..6.. and gains derived by a 100% EOU from the export of articles or things or computer software for a period of ten consecutive assessment years, beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year, in which it began to manufacture or produce such articles or things or computer software. It is pointed out that the claim of the petitioner for deduction under Section 10B of the Act has been accepted by the second respondent for the assessment years 2004- 05 to 2008-09, some of which have become final. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court, alleging that Ext.P4 order of assessment issued under Section 144C(13) of the Act is patently without jurisdiction. 3. Heard Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; and Sri.Ravindranatha Menon, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..7.. submitted that Ext.P4 order issued by the third respondent was beyond the time frame stipulated under Section 144C(13) of the Act, and therefore, non-est. Ext.P3 order of the DRP is dated 09.12.2013. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P4 order, in order to conform to the statutory time frame envisaged under Section 144C(13) of the Act, must have been received by the assessing authority either during December, 2013 or during January, 2014. Ext.P4 order does not reveal the date of receipt of Ext.P3 order by the assessing authority and the absence of evidence on the part of the third respondent to adduce proof showing the date of receipt of Ext.P3 order to rebut the challenge made against Ext.P4 order on the ground of limitation, totally justifies the case of the petitioner that Ext.P4 order is ultra vires Section 144C(13) of the Act. Relying on the decisions in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer [(1961) 41 ITR 191], WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..8.. Raza Textiles Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Rampur [(1973) 87 ITR 539 (SC): (1973) 1 SCC 633], Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Appollo Tyres Ltd. [(2022) 449 ITR 398 (Ker)], learned counsel submitted that Ext.P4 order was passed by the assessing authority beyond the period prescribed by law and when no order is passed pursuant to the directions of the DRP within the period prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Act, the income declared by the petitioner is deemed to be accepted by the department and the petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount paid. It is further submitted that Section 144C is a non-obstante provision and the officers have to comply with the procedure enumerated in Section 144C. Since Ext.P4 order was passed out of time specified in Section 144C(13), the order thus passed by the assessing officer is without any jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned Senior Standing WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..9.. Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that against Ext.P4 order passed by the assessing officer pursuant to the direction of the DRP, the assessee has a remedy to file an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 253(1)(d) of the Act. It is further submitted that Section 144B is similar to Section 144C and several judgments have been rendered by this Court under Section 144B, which are binding in this case also. According to the learned Standing Counsel, Ext.P4 order passed by the assessing officer is in conformity with the directions of the DRP and it is not a quasi judicial order, but a clerical order, which would not be interfered with as it is in consonance with a valid order of the DRP. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that Section 144C is a procedural provision and the functions of the assessing officer have practically come to an end on reference of the DRP and the order passed by WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..10.. the assessing officer is only formal in conformity with the directions of the DRP without hearing the assessee. Since the order passed by the assessing officer is only a procedural order passed in consonance with the directions of the DRP, it does not result in nullity. It is further submitted that the provision of statute is always for compliance, irrespective of whether the same is procedural or substantive. Section 144B is a similar provision as it stood then, a provision with a non-obstante clause, and this Court, in several cases, have interpreted the said provision and found the same to be illegal. To substantiate the above contentions, the learned Standing Counsel relied on Panchamahal Steel Ltd. v. U.A. Josehi, ITO & Another [1997 (225) ITR 458]. 6. The issues that arise for consideration are whether the assessing authority, while passing an order under Section 144C of the Act is WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..11.. bound to comply with the time frame stipulated under Section 144C(13) of the Act and whether the impugned order passed by the assessing authority was without jurisdiction. 7. Ext.P3 directions issued by the DRP under Section 144C(5) r/w sub-section 8 of Section 144C of the Act is dated 09.12.2013. For a better understanding, it is relevant to extract Section 144C of the Act, which reads thus; 144C. Reference to dispute resolution panel.—(1) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first instance, forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as the draft order) to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, on or after the 1st day of October, 2009, any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee. (2) On receipt of the draft order, the eligible assessee shall, within thirty days of the receipt by him of the draft order,— (a) file his acceptance of the variations to the Assessing Officer; or (b) file his objections, if any, to such variation with,— (i) the Dispute Resolution Panel; and (ii) the Assessing Officer. WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..12.. (3) The Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment on the basis of the draft order, if— (a) theassessee intimates to the Assessing Officer the acceptance of the variation; or (b) no objections are received within the period specified in sub-section (2). (4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained 2 [in section 153 orsection 153B], pass the assessment order under sub-section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,— (a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel 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. (6) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall issue the directions referred to in sub-section (5), after considering the following, namely:— (a) draft order; (b) objections filed by the assessee; (c) evidence furnished by the assessee; (d) report, if any, of the Assessing Officer, Valuation Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer or any other authority; (e) records relating to the draft order; (f) evidence collected by, or caused to be collected by, it; and (g) result of any enquiry made by, or caused to WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..13.. be made by, it. (7) The Dispute Resolution Panel may, before issuing any directions referred to in sub-section (5),— (a) make such further enquiry, as it thinks fit; or (b) cause any further enquiry to be made by any income-tax authority and report the result of the same to it. (8) The Dispute Resolution Panel may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order so, however, that it shall not set aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under subsection (5) for further enquiry and passing of the assessment order. (9) If the members of the Dispute Resolution Panel differ in opinion on any point, the point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members. (10) Every direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel shall be binding on the Assessing Officer. (11) 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. (12) 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. (13) Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 or section 153B, the assessment WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..14.. without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. (14) The Board may make rules for the purposes of the efficient functioning of the Dispute Resolution Panel and expeditious disposal of the objections filed under sub-section (2) by the eligible assessee. (15) For the purposes of this section,— (a) “Dispute Resolution Panel” means a collegium comprising of three Principal Commissioner or Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose; (b) “eligible assessee” means,— (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company. Section 144C of the Act was introduced for providing an alternative dispute resolution mechanism with effect from 01.10.2009 to facilitate an expeditious resolution of disputes on a fast track basis. The salient features of alternative dispute resolution mechanism reiterate a time bound consideration of the WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..15.. disputes in accordance with each and every sub- section of Section 144C and being a fast track assessment, the officers have to comply with the procedure and time limit enumerated in Section 144C for a speedy disposal of the disputes. Sub- section (1) of Section 144C is with regard to the draft assessment order passed by the assessing authority and sub-section (2) says that within 30 days on receipt of draft order, the assessee has to file acceptance of variation to the assessing officer and to file objections with the DRP and the assessing officer. In sub-section (3), it is stated that if no objections received with the time specified in sub-section (2), assessment on the basis of draft order shall be completed. Again, sub-section (4) says that the assessing officer shall pass assessment order within one month from the end of the month, in which acceptance is received or the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. It is WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..16.. to be noted that in all the provisions, a time bound action is specified. Sub-section (5) states that if any objection is received under sub- section (2), the DRP shall issue directions for the guidance of the assessing officer to enable him to complete the assessment. As per sub- section (6), the DRP shall issue directions referred to in sub-section (5) after considering the draft order, objections filed by the assessee, evidence furnished by the assessee etc. The DRP, before issuing any direction to the assessing authority, has to make further enquiry as it thinks fit. Also, as per sub-section (8), the DRP may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order. In sub- section (9), it is stated that if the members of the DRP differ in opinion on any point, the point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members. As per sub-section (10), every direction issued by the DRP shall be WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..17.. binding on the assessing officer. As per sub- section (11), without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessing officer, no direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued by the DRP. It is stated in sub-section (12) that 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. The provision in dispute, i.e., sub-section (13), states that on receipt of the directions issued under sub- section (5) from the DRP, the assessing officer, in conformity with the directions, has to complete the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee within one month from the end of the month, in which such direction is received. 8. Admittedly, Ext.P3 is dated 09.12.2013. Hence, the assessing officer was bound to pass the assessment order in conformity with the WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..18.. direction of the DRP before 31.01.2014. However, the assessing officer has passed Ext.P4 assessment order only on 27.03.2014, which was served on the petitioner on 31.03.2014. The respondents could not produce any document before this Court to prove receipt of Ext.P3 directions dated 09.12.2013 issued by the DRP. According to the petitioner, they received Ext.P3 on 27.12.2013. However, Ext.P4 assessment order was passed by the assessing authority on 27.03.2014, which is beyond the period stipulated in Section 144C(13) of the Act. 9. The issue now to be decided is, “Whether the provisions in Section 144C are only procedural or not?”. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 144C is a mandatory provision and issuance of the assessment order in violation of the time limit described in Section 144C makes the order illegal. Being a fast track assessment provision, WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..19.. the assessment officer has to stick on to the time limit prescribed in each sub-section of Section 144C for avoiding any further delay and also for the assessee to avail the benefit of fast track assessment. The learned counsel relied on the judgment in Raza Textiles Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that no authority much less a quasi-judicial authority, can confer jurisdiction on itself by deciding a jurisdictional fact wrongly. It was further held therein that the question whether the jurisdictional fact has been rightly decided or not is a question that is open for examination by the High Court in an application for a writ of certiorari. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the assessing officer has erroneously decided jurisdictional facts, the assessee is entitled for a writ of certiorari and thus, this writ petition is maintainable since the officer has passed the order without any WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..20.. jurisdiction. 10. On a perusal of Section 144C of the Act, it is found that, time is the essence of the proceedings. The specific time frame given under various sub-sections would clearly reflect the essentiality of the time factor, in which proceedings contemplated under Section 144C are to be completed by the respective authorities. A dilution of the time limits envisaged under the statutory frame work of Section 144C would, therefore, defeat the very purpose and object behind the insertion of the said provision. Section 153 of the Act deals with the time limit contemplated for the completion of assessments and re-assessments under the Act. It is relevant to note that in addition to the non-obstante clause under Section 144C(1) with respect to other provisions of the Act, there is a specific exclusion of the application of Section 153 from the frame work of Section 144C. This specific WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..21.. exclusion of Section 153 from the proceedings under Section 144C, exemplifies the rigour of the specific time limits provided under Section 144C. Under Section 153 of the Act, longer time limit is prescribed, whereas, specific time limit is prescribed under Section 144C of the Act. The specific exclusion of Section 153 from the ambit of Section 144C is a conscious action of the law- maker. If the legislature does not have any intention to stick on with the time limit prescribed in Section 144C, there was no necessity of insertion of Section 144C, since there was already a provision under Section 153 contemplating time limit for completion of assessments or re-assessments. Hence, it cannot be said that Section 144C is procedural, but, on the other hand, it is a substantive provision specifying time limit for completing proceedings by the assessee, the assessing officer and the DRP. WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..22.. 11. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents emphasized the arguments finding similarity with Sections 144B and 144C of the Act. Section 144B is a provision enabling reference to the Deputy Commissioner in certain cases. However, it is seen that the said provision was omitted with effect from 01.04.1989 by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. Learned Standing Counsel relied on Joseph Kuruvila v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1989) 179 ITR 139] and A.M.Zainalabdeen Musaliar v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1994) 207 ITR 143 (KER)]. In Joseph Kuruvila (supra), it has been held that failure to follow procedure prescribed by Section 144B is only procedural irregularity and it does not invalidate the assessment and that Section 144B of the Act is a procedural provision and a breach of that provision is not a fundamental or jurisdictional infirmity which would render the assessment void or a nullity. In WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..23.. A.M.Zainalabdeen Musaliar (supra), it has been reiterated that Section 144B of the Act is a procedural provision and a breach of that provision is not a fundamental or jurisdictional infirmity which would render the assessment void or a nullity. According the learned Standing Counsel, Section 144B was not a provision for fast track assessment. 12. By inserting Section 144C, the legislature had a specific intention that the time limit prescribed in the provision has to be strictly complied with and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 153, the assessing officer has to pass the assessment order. Hence, it is clear that the intention of the legislature was to comply with the time limit prescribed in the said section in order to avail the benefit of fast track assessment. The assessing officer cannot, at their whims and fancies, pass any order under Section 144C, but, they have to WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..24.. strictly comply with the statutory provisions envisaged under Section 144C. 13. The respondents could not convince this Court regarding the date of receipt of Ext.P3 proceedings by the assessing officer issued by the DRP. No reasons have been stated in the order as to the delay in passing Ext.P4 order and non compliance of the statutory provisions envisaged under Section 144C. The fundamental principle of interpretation is to assign words, their natural, original and precise meaning, provided that the words are clear and take into account the purpose of the statute. It is settled that the provisions should be examined in their literal sense and given their natural effect. This is the elementary golden rule of interpretation of statutes. Sub-section (13) of Section 144C is thus very clear that upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the assessing officer shall, in conformity with the WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..25.. directions, complete the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 or section 153B, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. There is no requirement of dwell in further inductive analysis of the above provision. The assessing officer has not filed any counter affidavit to affirm the date, on which Ext.P3 directions of the DRP was received. They only state that the provisions in Section 144C are only procedural and not substantive, to which I do not agree. Section 144C of the Act is very specific and clear as to the compliance of the statutory provisions. 14. In Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Central Processing Centre and Others [2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2464], relying on the decisions in Turner International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..26.. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(2), New Delhi [(2017) 297 CTR 460:MANU/DE/1386/2017] and Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi & others [MANU/MH/0561/2022], it has been held that the failure on the part of the department to follow the procedure under Section 144C of the Act is not merely a procedural irregularity, but, an illegality and vitiates the entire proceeding. 15. Section 144C is inserted in the Finance Act, 2009 with a view to provide a speedy disposal to create an alternative dispute resolution mechanism within the Income Tax Department. If the provisions of Section 144C as mandated by the statute are not strictly adhered to, the entire object of providing an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in the form of DRP would stand defeated. The legislature had clear WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..27.. intention while the said provision was inserted in 2009 to facilitate an expeditious resolution of disputes on a fast track basis. If the assessing officer fails to pass any order in accordance with the statutory provisions, as mandated under Section 144C, it will defeat the entire exercise and render the same futile. The directions in Ext.P3 given by the DRP are binding on the assessing officer, who has to finalize the assessment order even without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. There was nothing more to do by the assessing officer than to pass an assessment order on receipt of Ext.P3. Once the statute has prescribed limitation period for passing a final order, the officers of the Department should act accordingly in order to provide the assessee an expeditious resolution of the disputes. The impugned orders were passed by the assessing authority beyond the time prescribed under Section 144C(13). Therefore, I WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..28.. am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the assessing officer cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P4 assessment order is set aside. Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/- WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2014 ..29.. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10427/2014 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A copy of the decision in CIT Vs. Western Outdoor interactive P.Ltd, reported in (2012) 349 ITR 309 (Bom.) Annexure 2 A copy of the decision in Radhasoamy Satsang Vs. CIT, Reported in (1992) 1 SCC 659 P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD 21/3/2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DTD 23/4/2013 (WITH COVERING LETTER)FILED UNDER SUB-SECTION(2) OF SECTION 144C OF THE ACT P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE 'DIRECTIONS'DTD 9/12/2013 ISSUED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL SUB-SECTION(5)OF SECTION 144C OF THE ACT P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD 27/3/2014 WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ON 31/3/2014 "