Walter Tools India Private Ltd., Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 434/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9115 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 27; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO , AM . / ITA NO. 4 34 /P U N/201 5 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 1 1 WALTER TOOLS INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI - PUNE ROAD, DAPODI, PUNE 411012 . / APPELLANT PAN: AA ACW4857C VS. THE DY . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 0 , PUNE . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR , CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 1 4 . 0 3 . 201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 . 0 3 .201 8 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF D CIT , CIRCLE - 10, PUNE , DATED 30 . 0 1 .201 5 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 1 1 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED RE PRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - ITA NO. 4 34 /P U N/20 1 5 WALTER TOOLS INDIA P LTD. 2 1. THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW, THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, AND WHICH IS VOID AND OF NO LEGAL EFFECT. 3. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ELABORATING THE ISSUE VIDE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 & 2 WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - 1. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN SECTION 144 C OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID. 2. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE L EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (LD. AO), ERRED IN ISSUING NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 27 1 ( 1 )(C) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HENCE, SINCE THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN SECTION 144 C WAS NO T FOLLOWED BY THE LEARNED AO, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BE HELD INVALID IN LAW. 4 . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN COMPLETING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE ACT. HE POINTED OUT THAT REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) UNDER SECTION 92CA(1) OF THE ACT AND THE TPO PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 2 8 .01.201 4 , WHEREIN HE PROPOSED AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS.4, 97 , 8 4, 857 / - ON ACCOUNT OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO MANAGEMENT SERVICES FEES (MSF) . REFERRING TO THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) OF THE ACT, DATED 17 .0 2 .201 4 , THE LE ARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ALONG WITH DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST CRYSTALLIZATION OF DEMAND AT RS.1. 93 CRORES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) & 271C(1)(A) R.W.S. 274 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) BUT NO SUCH ISSUE WAS RAISED AND THE SAID OBJECTIONS WERE DISMISSED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER, ITA NO. 4 34 /P U N/20 1 5 WALTER TOOLS INDIA P LTD. 3 PASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE ACT, DATED 30 .01.201 5 , WHEREIN THE SAID ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT THAT DRAFT AS SESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN THE DEMAND NOTICE WAS ISSUED ALONG WITH NOTICE FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS IN FACT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINING THE DEMAND PAYABLE. HE STATED THAT JURISDI CTIONAL ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S. REHAU POLYMERS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.566/PUN/2015, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 WITH CO NO.27/PUN/2017, ORDER DATED 14.06.2017. 5 . T HE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT RE QUIRE ANY INVESTIGATION OF FACTS AND HENCE, THE SAME ARE ADMITTED. THE ISSUE WHICH IS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WHETHER THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE ALONG WITH ISSUE OF DEMAND NOTICE IS CORRECT START OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSES SEE. THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT IS THAT IN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PROPOSED, ADDITIONS ARE TO BE MADE AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS TO BE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE EITHER ACCEPTING THE SAME OR FILE OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP. HOWEVER, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESE NT CASE, THERE WAS NO PROPOSAL FOR MAKING ADDITION BUT THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLS IT A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AT LIBERTY TO FILE OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP OR ACCEPT THE S AME, BUT ALONG WITH THE SAID ORDER, HE ALSO ISSUED DEMAND NOTICE AND ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 4 34 /P U N/20 1 5 WALTER TOOLS INDIA P LTD. 4 7 . WE FIND SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S. REHAU POLYMERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) OF THE ACT. AFTER RECEIPT OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT FROM THE TPO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SUPPOSED TO ISSUE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PROPOSING TO MAKE THE ADDITION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED THE SAID ORDER TO BE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT ASSESSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND FURTHER ISSUED DEMAND NOTICE ALONG ITNS - 150, AFTER CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A, 234B & 234C, ETC. HE ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE ON UNDERSTANDING THAT TH E SAME WAS DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, MADE OBJECTIONS TO THE DRP, WHO GAVE CERTAIN DIRECTIONS AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE RAISED, WE NEED TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C OF THE ACT. 11. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF ASSESSMENT TO BE FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE ACT AROSE BEFORE THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN SOKTAS INDIA (P) LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA). 12. TH E TRIBUNAL AFTER NOTING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 92CA(3) AND 144C OF THE ACT AND HAD ALSO ISSUED DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT AND HAD ALSO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE COVERING LETTER SAID THAT IT WAS DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS EITHER TO FILE OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP OR ACCEPT THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP, WHO DISMISSED THE SAME O N THE SURMISE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO ISSUED THE DEMAND NOTICE AND HAD ALSO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. IN VIEW OF THE SAID FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE REFERENCE TO THE TPO VIS - - VIS TO DETERMINE THE ARM'S LENGTH PR ICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISES. THE TPO VIDE ORDER DATED 28.01.2014 UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT HAD PROPOSED THE ADJUSTMENT TO ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AND HAD PASSE D THE SAID ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON RECEIPT OF SAID ORDER PASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 92C(4) AND 144C OF THE ACT. THE SAID ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH LETTER DATED 28.02.2014, WHEREIN THE ASSESS ING OFFICER CATEGORICALLY SAID THAT THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS BEING FORWARDED FOR NECESSARY ACTION AT THE END OF ASSESSEE. IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE SAID LETTER THAT ON RECEIPT OF DRAFT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE MAY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF D RAFT ORDER EITHER FILE ACCEPTANCE OF VARIATION AS PROPOSED IN THE ORDER OR FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE VARIATION TO THE DRP OR TO THE UNDERSIGNED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT DATED 28.02.2014 AND ALSO I SSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ON UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER FILED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP ON 07.04.2014 I.E. WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER THE STATUTE. HOWEVER, THE SAID OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE DRP AND THE SAME WERE REJECTED ON THE SURMISE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FINAL ITA NO. 4 34 /P U N/20 1 5 WALTER TOOLS INDIA P LTD. 5 ASSESSMENT ORDER SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO ISSUED DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. THE DRP OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT DID NOT HAVE ANY JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ANY DIRECTIONS ON SUCH FINAL ASSESSMENT ORD ER. AFTER RECEIVING THE DRPS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NECESSARY ACTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REPLY, VIDE LETTER DATED 30.01.2015 STATED THAT THE DRP HAD CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE ORDER PASSED ON 28.0 2.2014 WAS FINAL ORDER AND NOT DRAFT ORDER, SO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE ANY JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. 7. IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE, REFERENCE NEEDS TO BE MADE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C OF THE ACT. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 144C OF THE ACT, IT IS PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO MAKE, ON OR AFTER 01.10.2009, ANY VARIATION IN THE INCOME OR LOSS RETURNED, WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF ASSESSEE, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL IN THE FIRST IN STANCE FORWARD THE DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT TO THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE. UNDER SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 144C OF THE ACT ON RECEIPT OF THE DRAFT ORDER, THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE SHALL WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT, FILE HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE VA RIATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR FILE HIS OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, TO SUCH VARIATION WITH THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNDER SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 144C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BA SIS OF DRAFT ORDER IF THE ASSESSEE INTIMATES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE VARIATION OR NO OBJECTIONS ARE RECEIVED WITHIN PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 144C OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO PA SS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE END OF MONTH, IN WHICH THE ACCEPTANCE IS RECEIVED OR THE PERIOD OF FILING OBJECTIONS UNDER SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 144C OF THE ACT EXPIRES. UNDER SUB - SECTION (5) OF SECTION 144C OF THE ACT, IT IS PROVID ED THAT THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL SHALL IN CASE WHERE 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. UPON RECEIPT OF THE SAID DIRECT IONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SAME, COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH SUCH DIRECTION IS RECEIVED, NOTWITHSTANDIN G ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN SECTION 153 OR 153B OF THE ACT, AS PER SUB - SECTION (13) TO SECTION 144C OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C OF THE ACT IMPLIEDLY WHERE THE TPO PROPOSES ANY VARIATION IN THE INCOME OR LOSS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL IN THE FIRST INSTANCE FORWARD THE DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ORDER TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER, IF NO OBJECTIONS ARE RECEIVED AND / OR THE ASSESSEE FILE S HIS ACCEPTANCE TO THE VARIATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONTH THEREOF. IN CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILES HIS OBJECTION BEFORE THE DRP AND WHERE THE SAID PANEL ISSUES DIRECTIONS AS IT THINKS FIT, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON RECEIPT OF SUCH DIRECTIONS SHALL COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH SUCH DIRECTIONS. IN VIEW OF THE SAID PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE COMPLIANCE TO SECTION 144C OF THE ACT IS MA NDATORY IN ALL SUCH CASES, WHERE THE TPO PROPOSES VARIATION IN THE INCOME OR LOSS RETURNED, WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF ASSESSEE. ONLY AFTER COMPLYING WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 144C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERE D TO PASS THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE ACT COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 4 34 /P U N/20 1 5 WALTER TOOLS INDIA P LTD. 6 ON SUCH ENHANCED INCOME OR VARIATION IN THE LOSS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAY TELEVISION WRIT PETITION NOS.1526 AN D 1527 OF 2014 & M.P. NOS.1 AND 1 OF 2014, IT WAS HELD THAT NON - PASSING OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE TPO RENDERS PROCEEDINGS NULL & VOID BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - UNDER SECTION 144C(1) OF THE ACT, WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST OCTOBER 2009 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO MANDATORILY ISSUE A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER IF THERE IS A PROPOSED VARIATION TO THE RETURN WHICH ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE. THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER IS AN ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN DISPUTE. WHILE SO, UND ER SECTION 144C(2) OF THE ACT, THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE HAS THE OPTION, EITHER TO ACCEPT THE VARIATION OR TO FILE THEIR OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP AND SUCH OPTION HAS TO BE EXERCISED WITHIN 30 DAYS. ON SUCH OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE DRP SHALL ISSU E APPROPRIATE DIRECTION FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 144C(5) OF THE ACT. IT IS ONLY THEREAFTER, THE AO IS BOUND TO PASS A FINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE DRP UNDER SECTION 144C(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE ABOVE MANDATORY PROCEDURE, THE AO HAS PASSED THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ON 26.03.2013 AND SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED A CORRIGENDUM ON 15.04.2014 TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE COMMITTED IN PASSING THE FINAL ORDER OF ASSESSME NT INTER ALIA TO TREAT IT AS A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS COURSE OF ACTION ADOPTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IS CONTRARY TO THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACT AND THE CORRIGENDUM ISSUED BY THE AO COULD NOT CURE THE DEFECT. THE VERY FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIGNED THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND ALSO ASSESSED THE AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME COMPLETE AND IT CANNOT BE SIMPLY TREATED AS A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IT CAN BE RECTIFIED BY ISSUING THE CORRIGENDUM. IN FACT, PURSU ANT TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143C, DEMAND WAS ALSO MADE FOR PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT AND SUCH DEMAND HAS NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT EVEN AFTER ISSUING THE CORRIGENDUM. EVEN AS PER THE WEBSITE OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE DEMAND MAD E TO THE PETITIONER COMPANY CONTINUES TILL DATE AND THEREFORE, THE FINAL ORDER AS WELL AS THE THE CORRIGENDUM ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT ARE VITIATED BY ERRORS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND THEY ARE LEGALLY NOT SUSTAINABLE. 9. THE SIMILAR I SSUE HAD ARISEN BEFORE THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN AGFA INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS.341/PN/2014 AND 1072/PN/2014, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, ORDER DATED 28.10.2015 AND REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDH RA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD IN M/S. ZUARI CEMENTS LTD. VS. ACIT IN WP NO.5557/2012, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 21.02.2013 AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ACIT VS. M/S. ZUARI CEMENT LTD. VIDE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CC NO.16694/2013, JUDGMENT DATED 27.09.2013 AND IT W AS HELD AS UNDER: - 20. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD IN M/S. ZUARI CEMENTS LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) ON SIMILAR ISSUE WHERE AFTER RECEIPT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TPO UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASS ED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT RAISING A DEMAND OF RS.27,40,71,913/ - WITHOUT GIVING AN ITA NO. 4 34 /P U N/20 1 5 WALTER TOOLS INDIA P LTD. 7 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 144C OF THE ACT, OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO MAKE ON OR AFTER 01.10.2009, AN Y VARIATION IN THE INCOME OR LOSS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN NOTWITHSTANDING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN THE ACT, HE SHALL FIRST PASS THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, FORWARD THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER ASSESSEE FILES HIS OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SHALL COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT WITHIN ONE MONTH, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO GIVEN AN OPTION TO FILE AN OBJECTION BEFORE THE DRP, IN WHICH THE LATTER CAN ISSUE DIREC TIONS FOR THE GUIDANCE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENABLE HIM TO COMPLETE ASSESSMENT. WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE VARIATION SUBMITTED BY THE TPO WITHOUT GIVING THE PETITIONER ANY OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO IT AND PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT WAS H ELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF A.P THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS CLEARLY CONTRARY TO SECTION 144C OF THE ACT AND WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, NULL AND VOID. THE OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CIRCULAR NO.5/2010 OF THE CBDT WHICH LAID DOWN TH AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C OF THE ACT SHALL NOT APPLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND WOULD ONLY APPLY FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND LATER YEARS WAS HELD TO BE NOT TENABLE WHERE THE LANGUAGE OF SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 144C OF THE ACT REFER RED TO THE CUTOFF DATE OF 01.10.2009 INDICATES THE INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE TO MAKE IT APPLICABLE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF A.P FURTHER HELD THAT THE CIRCULAR NO.5/2010 ISSUED BY THE CBDT STATING THAT SECTION 144C(1) OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY ONLY FROM ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND NOT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 WAS CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESSED LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION AND THE SAID VIEW OF THE REVENUE WAS HELD TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF A.P THEREAFTER HELD THAT THE IMPU GNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 23.12.2011 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT WAS CONTRARY TO THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C OF THE ACT IS DECLARED AS ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION, NULL AND VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HELD AS UNDER: - IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DT. 23.12.2011 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IS CONTRARY TO THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF S.144C OF THE ACT AND IS PASSED IN VIOLATION THEREOF. THEREFORE, IT IS DECL ARED AS ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION, NULL AND VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IS SET ASIDE. 21. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT (SUPRA) IN ACIT VS. ZUARI CEMENTS LTD. (SUPRA) HAD DISMISSED THE SPE CIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT UPON HEARING THE COUNSEL. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE SAID SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION WAS DISMISSED AFTER HEARING THE COUNSEL AND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE HIG H COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE APEX COURT AND ANY ORDER CONTRADICTING THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 144C OF THE ACT IS NULL AND VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE IN LAW. 22. FURTHER, THE DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CAPSUGEL HEALTHCARE LIMITED IN ITA NO.1356/DEL/2012, VIDE ITA NO. 4 34 /P U N/20 1 5 WALTER TOOLS INDIA P LTD. 8 ORDER DATED 30.09.2014 HAVE UPHELD THE SIMILAR VIEW THAT FAILURE TO PASS DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER TPOS ORDER RENDERS PROCEEDINGS VOID. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CANNOT BE QUOTED WITH DRAFT ASSESSMEN T ORDER. 10. FURTHER, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION VS. DCIT (SUPRA) HAVE ALSO DOWN THE SIMILAR PROPOSITION AND HELD AS UNDER: - 4. THE PETITIONER HAD CONSEQUENT TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23 RD MARCH 2015 FI LED ITS OBJECTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 144C(2) OF THE ACT TO THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). BY AN ORDER DATED 7 TH OCTOBER, 2015, THE DRP REFUSED TO PASS ANY DIRECTION ON THE OBJECTIONS BECAUSE THE OBJECTIONS HAD BEEN FILED IN RESPECT OF A FINAL ORDE R UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NOT IN RESPECT OF THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144C(1) OF THE ACT. THE ORDER DATED 7 TH OCTOBER, 2015 OF THE DRP HOLDS THAT ITS JURISDICTION IS ONLY TO ENTERTAIN OBJECTIONS WITH REGARD TO DRAFT ASSES SMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144C(1) OF THE ACT. 5. HOWEVER, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ORDER DATED 7 TH OCTOBER, 2015 OF THE DRP IN PARAGRAPH (3) THEREOF RECORDS THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FOREIGN COMPANY. THIS POSITION I S UNDISPUTED EVEN BEFORE US. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF SECTION 144C(15) OF THE ACT WHICH DEFINES ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE TO WHOM SECTION 144C(1) OF THE ACT APPLIES TO INTER ALIA MEAN ANY FOREIGN COMPANY. THEREFORE, A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144C(1) OF THE ACT IS MANDATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSES A FINAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IN CASE OF ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE. AN DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144C(1) OF THE ACT BESTOWS CERTAIN RIGHTS UPON AN ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE SUCH AS TO APPROACH THE DRP WITH ITS OBJECTIONS TO SUCH A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT AN ELIGIBLE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE CAN BE ADDRESSED BEFORE A FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS INVOKED BY IT. HOWEVER, THESE SPE CIAL RIGHTS MADE AVAILABLE TO ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 144C OF THE ACT ARE RENDERED FUTILE, IF DIRECTLY A FINAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IS PASSED WITHOUT BEING PRECEDED BY DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. IN THE ABOVE VIEW, THE ASSESSMENT O RDER DATED 23 RD MARCH, 2015 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 IS COMPLETELY WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THIS IS SO AS IT HAS NOT BEEN PRECEDED BY A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. HENCE, THE FOUNDATIONAL/BASIC ORDER VIZ. THE ASSESSMENT OR DER DATED 23 RD MARCH, 2015 IS SET ASIDE AND QUASHED AS BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. CONSEQUENT ORDERS PASSED ON RECTIFICATION APPLICATION AS WELL AS ON PENALTY ARE ALSO QUASHED AND SET ASIDE BEING UNSUSTAINABLE. 11. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AND THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAY TELEVISION WRIT PETITION NOS.1526 AND 1527 OF 2014 & M.P. NOS.1 AND 1 OF 2014 VIS - - VIS. WHEREAS THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE STRONGLY OPPOSED AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SENT THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE LETTER CLEARLY SAYS THAT IT IS DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE POINTED OUT THAT ITA NO. 4 34 /P U N/20 1 5 WALTER TOOLS INDIA P LTD. 9 THE DRP HAD MIS - INTERPRETED AND THE ISSUE MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF DRP. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE FACTS BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WERE DIFFERENT AND THE SAID PROPOSITION IS NOT APPLICABLE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER ON 28.02.2014 ALONG WITH WHICH IT ALSO ISSUED THE DEMAND NOTICE AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CRYSTALLIZED THE DEM AND IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. WHEREAS, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO VARY THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, THERE WAS REQUIREMENT TO ISSUE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE SAID ADDITIONS, BY WAY OF DRAF T ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE DEMAND DOES NOT GET CRYSTALLIZED IN DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED COVERING LETTER WHERE IT SAYS THAT IT IS DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT IN SPIRIT, IT HAD FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT, WHEREIN THE DEMAND WAS CRYSTALLIZED AND DEMAND NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE CORRECT PROCEDURE AS PROVIDED IN THE STATUTE AND HAS PASSED FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT PASSING DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND HENCE, THE SAME IS INVALID IN LAW. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AND THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VIJAY TELEVISION PVT. LTD. VS. DRP & OTHERS (SUPRA) AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN M/S. ZUARI CEMENTS LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA). WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE IS INVALID AND THE SAME IS SET ASIDE. SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED THE PRELIMINARY ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE, THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BECOME ACADEMIC AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 13. THE FACTS BEFORE US ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN SOKTAS INDIA (P) LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA). IN THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE DEMAND GOT CRYSTALLIZED ON PASSING OF THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED DEMAND NOTICE IN ITNS - 150 AND HAD ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE SAID ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED AS DRAFT AS SESSMENT BUT IN ACTUAL FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE BY NOT ONLY ASSESSING THE INCOME BUT ALSO DETERMINING THE DEMAND PAYABLE. IN THE CASE OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, PROPOSED ADDITIONS ARE TO BE MADE AND THE ASSESSEE IS SHOW CAUSED EITHER TO ACCEPT THE SAME OR FILE THE OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT FACTS, THERE WAS NOT A PROPOSAL FOR MAKING ADDITION BUT FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SAID THAT HE IS PASSING DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO AT LIBERTY TO FILE THE OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP OR ACCEPT THE SAME, BUT IN ACTUAL FACT, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS COMPLETE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS NOT ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE IS INVALID IN LAW. 8 . FURTHER, SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.419/PUN/2014, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009 - 10, ORDER DATED 23.01.2018 AND IN M/S. SANDVIK ASIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.467/PUN/2015 AND CROSS APPEAL IN ITA NO.564/PUN/2015 ALONG WITH CO NO.24/PUN/2017, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, ORDER DATED 25.01.2018. ITA NO. 4 34 /P U N/20 1 5 WALTER TOOLS INDIA P LTD. 10 9. WE FIND THAT THE HONB LE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN JCB INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT (2017) 85 TAXMANN.COM 155 (DEL) HAS LAID DOWN THAT EVEN IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT STRAIGHTAWAY PASS FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT ISSUING DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144C OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DID NOT ACCEPT THE STAND OF REVENUE THAT IT WAS AN IRREGULARITY WHICH WAS CURABLE UNDER SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. RELYING ON EARLIER DECISION OF THE SAID HIGH COURT, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT SECTION 292B OF THE ACT COULD NOT SAVE AN ORDER NOT PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WHERE THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS NOT ABOUT THE MISTAKE IN THE SAID ORDER BUT THE POWER OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS THE ORDER. FURTHER, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISION OF SAID HIGH COU RT ITSELF IN TURNER INTERNATIONAL INDIA (P.) LTD. VS. DCIT (2017) 82 TAXMANN.COM 125 (DEL) , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS MANDATORY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE PASS DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144C OF THE ACT PRIOR TO ISSUING FINAL ASSESSM ENT ORDER. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS ARE IN PARA 21 WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 21. IN ALMOST IDENTICAL FACTS, IN TURNER INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA), THIS COURT HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS MANDATORY FOR THE AO TO HAVE PASSED A DRAFT ASSESSME NT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144C OF THE ACT PRIOR TO ISSUING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM SAID DECISION ARE RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSES: '11. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FINAL ASS ESSMENT ORDER STANDS VITIATED FOR FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS OF FIRST PASSING DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER IN TERMS OF SECTION 144C(1) OF THE ACT IS NO LONGER RES INTREGRA. THERE IS A LONG SERIES OF DECISIONS TO WHICH REFERENCE WOULD BE MADE PRESENTLY. 12. IN ZUARI CEMENT LTD. V. ACIT (DECISION DATED 21ST FEBRUARY, 2013 IN WP(C) NO.5557/2012), THE DIVISION BENCH (DB) OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE FAILURE TO PA SS A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144C (1) OF THE ACT WOULD RESULT IN RENDERING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER 'WITHOUT JURISDICTION, NULL AND VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE.' IN THAT CASE, THE CONSEQUENT DEMAND NOTICE WAS ALSO SET ASIDE. THE DECISION OF THE A NDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT BY THE DISMISSAL OF THE REVENUE'S SLP (C) [CC NO. 16694/2013] ON 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. 13. IN VIJAY TELEVISION (P) LTD. V. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PA NEL [2014] 369 ITR 113 (MAD.), A SIMILAR QUESTION AROSE. THERE, THE REVENUE SOUGHT TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE BY ISSUING A CORRIGENDUM AFTER THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED. CONSEQUENTLY, NOT ONLY THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ITA NO. 4 34 /P U N/20 1 5 WALTER TOOLS INDIA P LTD. 11 BUT ALSO THE CORRIGENDUM ISSUED THEREAFTER WAS CHALLENGED. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN ZUARI CEMENT LTD. V. ACIT (SUPRA) AND A NUMBER OF OTHER DECISIONS, THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VIJAY TELEVISION (P) LTD. V. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (SUPRA) QUASHED THE FINAL ORDER OF THE AO AND THE DEMAND NOTICE. INTERESTINGLY, EVEN AS REGARDS THE CORRIGENDUM ISSUED, THE MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD THAT IT WAS BEYOND THE TI ME PERMISSIBLE FOR ISSUANCE OF SUCH CORRIGENDUM AND, THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. 14. RECENTLY, THIS COURT IN ESPN STAR SPORTS MAURITIUS S.N.C. ET COMPAGNIE V. UNION OF INDIA [2016] 388 ITR 383 (DEL.), FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN ZUARI CEMENT LTD. V. ACIT (SUPRA), THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VIJAY TELEVISI ON (P) LTD. V. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL, CHENNAI (SUPRA) AS WELL AS THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION V. DCIT (2016) 290 CTR (BOM) 46, CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.' 10. THE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE US IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. M/S. REHAU POLYMERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND ASSESSEES OWN CASE . HENCE, THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS COMPLETE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS NOT ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE IS INVALID IN LAW. IN VIEW OF OUR DECIDING THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUES ON MERITS. THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 1 1 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF MARCH , 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( D.KARUNAKARA RAO ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 16 TH MARCH , 201 8 . GCVSR ITA NO. 4 34 /P U N/20 1 5 WALTER TOOLS INDIA P LTD. 12 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT ; 2 . THE RESPONDENT; 3. THE DRP, PUNE ; 4. THE DIT (TP/IT), PUNE ; 5. THE DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE