AI Insights
The case revolves around the dispute concerning the nature of an assessment order issued to M/s. Hyundai Motor India Engineering Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 2015-16. The core issue was whether the order issued was a 'draft assessment order' under Section 144-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or a 'final assessment order'. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had set aside the assessment order, leading to the present appeal by the Income Tax Department. The High Court examined the procedural compliance with Section 144-C, particularly the requirement of issuing a draft assessment order and allowing the assessee to respond before passing a final order.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 737609 (HC-TELANGANA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
11-09-2023
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
"[ 33861 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 29 OF 2023 (Income Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-A. of the Income Tax Act, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', Hyderabad in ITA No. [23MYD/2020 for assessment Year 2015-16 dated 29.07.2O22, preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2 Hyderabad, Appeal No.l02l712018- 19/CIT(A)-2 dated 05.12.2019, preferred against the Order of the Depury Commissioner of Income ta:q Circle2(2), Hyderabad, PAN/GIR No.AABCJH7867C dated 27.07.2022 Between: The Prl. Commissioner of lncome Tax - 2, Hyderabad. ,..APPELLANT AND M/s. Hy_undaiJvlotor lndia Engineering Pvt. Lld-, Sy. No.5/2 and 5/3, Opp. Hitech City Railway Station. lzzatnagar, Lingampally Mandat, Hyderabad- 50dd84. PAN No. AABCJH7867C ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant :Smt K. MAMATA CHOUDARY Counsel for the Respondent :SRl K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO The Court made the following: : l I ; i I ! i I t : 3 I I I I t I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY I.T.T.A.No.29 of 2023 JUDGMENT:. er Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHYI The challenge in the instant appeal is to the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the Income 'i'ax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal'), Hyderaba:d Bench 'B' Hyderabad, in I.T.A.No.123/Hyd/2020 for thr: assessment year 2O15-16. Vide the said impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred t,)' the respondent/ assessee by setting aside the ordt:r passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short '(CIT (Appeats)') dated 05. 12.2O19 and also the assesism(:nt order passed on 11.12.2018. 2. Heard Ms. K. Mamata Choudary, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Raghavendra Rao, learned coltnsel for the respondent-Department. 3. The issue involved in the present appeal is rr,hether thc Tribunal was justified in setting aside tl-rc ,rsse ssment 4 order dated ll .12.2018, treating the same as final assessment order' Rather than, treating it to be a draft assessment order under Section 144-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act')' 4. The brief facts which led to the hling of the instant appeal is ttrat the respondent/ assessee is involved in the business of rendering support services in computer aided engineering freld. For the assessment year 20 I 5- 16 ' respondent/ assessee filed its return on 27 'l l '2Ol5 The assessment of the respondent/ assessee was subsequently subjected to scrutiny under Section t 3 (2) of thc Act and referencewasmadetoTransferPricingofficer(TPo)for determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the assessee's international transactions entered with its associate enterPrises. 5. In terms of the procedure prescribed bclore an assessment is frnalized, the statute requires the Assessing Authority to first forward a draft assessment order to the assessee, calling upon his objections if any The objections are to be submitted within thirty (3O) days from the date of 5 its receipt. And it is only thereafter that the Assessing Authority shall pass the final assessment order. It is this requirement under law which is in dispute in the present appeal 6. The dispute in the instant case is that when the draft Assessment Order under Section 144-C was sent to the respondent/ assessee, it also was accompanie(l b1, a notice of demand and penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is said that thc respondent/ assessee did not respond to the said notice and as a consequence, the final assessment order r.vas passed on 10.0I.2019. The responde:nt/ assessee immediatel.\"- preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) on the ven' same day i.e. on 10.01.2019, which rr'as rejected by the CIT (Appeals), leading to frling of an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal aJter consi
Other Referred Cases
M/s. BS Hyderabad vs. ACIT, M/s.Zuari Cement Ltd. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijag Television (P) Ltd. vs. Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai, Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) vs. Cisco Systems Services, SHL (India) Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act, 1961
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹1
Guide to Charitable Trusts: Formation, Benefits, and Compliance
₹0
Initial LLP Agreement
₹0
Startup Valuation Certificate
₹0
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026