Introduction

The case of Apache Footwear India Private Limited versus the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Tirupati presented a pivotal examination of procedural compliance under the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically focusing on the implementation of Section 144C. This judgment, delivered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Hyderabad on January 11, 2023, addresses significant procedural lapses by the assessing authority, thereby establishing a crucial precedent for future tax assessment proceedings.

The primary parties involved are:

• Appellant: Apache Footwear India Private Limited
• Respondent: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Tirupati

The key issues revolve around the improper issuance of assessment orders and the premature issuance of demand notices without following the mandatory procedures prescribed under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act.

Summary of the Judgment

The ITAT Hyderabad Bench found in favor of Apache Footwear India Pvt. Ltd., declaring the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) as null and void. The primary reason was the failure of the assessing authority to adhere to the procedural mandates of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, which governs the issuance of assessment orders in cases involving significant international transactions.

Key points from the judgment include:

• The Assessing Officer (AO) erroneously passed a final assessment order alongside a draft assessment order, contrary to the procedural requirements of Section 144C.
• The AO issued a demand notice and initiated penalty proceedings without completing the mandated assessment process.
• The tribunal emphasized that such procedural lapses render the assessment order invalid ab initio, necessitating its annulment.
• The appellate tribunal cited multiple precedents where similar procedural errors led to the quashing of assessment orders.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior cases that underscore the importance of procedural compliance in tax assessments:

• Kalyan Kumar Ray v. Commissioner of Income Tax (SC): Established that the issuance of a demand notice marks the end of the assessment process, rendering any subsequent orders as null.
• Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi): Affirmed that simultaneous issuance of demand notices with draft orders violates procedural norms, leading to the invalidation of such orders.
• Skoda Auto India Ltd. v. ACIT (ITAT Pune): Reinforced that procedural irregularities in the assessment process, such as issuing notices prematurely, result in the nullification of assessment orders.
• Aker Powergas Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (ITAT Mumbai): Highlighted that non-compliance with Section 144C mandates requires setting aside of the assessment orders.

These precedents collectively emphasize that strict adherence to prescribed tax assessment procedures is non-negotiable, and any deviation can invalidate the assessment.

Legal Reasoning

The tribunal's legal reasoning centered on the mandatory procedures outlined in Section 144C of the Income Tax Act. Specifically:

• Section 144C(1) Mandate: The AO is required to issue a draft assessment order for any variations in income, especially in cases involving large international transactions.
• Section 144C(3) and (13): Upon acceptance or non-objection by the taxpayer, the AO must finalize the assessment; if objections are raised, directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) must be adhered to before finalizing the order.
• The AO bypassed these steps by issuing a demand notice alongside a draft assessment order, thereby prematurely concluding the assessment process.
• The tribunal held that such procedural lapses are not merely technicalities but fundamental legal violations that undermine the validity of the assessment order.

Consequently, the tribunal determined that the assessment order was void ab initio due to the AO's failure to follow the prescribed legal framework.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for both taxpayers and tax authorities:

• For Tax Authorities: Reinforces the necessity of strict procedural compliance under the Income Tax Act. Failure to adhere to these procedures can lead to the nullification of assessment orders, undermining the authority's power to enforce tax liabilities.
• For Taxpayers: Empowers taxpayers to challenge assessment orders on procedural grounds, ensuring that their rights are protected against arbitrary or unlawful assessments.
• For Legal Framework: Strengthens the judicial oversight of tax assessment procedures, promoting transparency and fairness in the tax administration process.
• Establishes a clear precedent that procedural errors, especially those related to the issuance of draft and final orders, have substantive legal consequences.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The judgment delves into several intricate legal concepts which are pivotal for understanding the case:

• Section 144C of the Income Tax Act: A provision that outlines the procedure for assessing taxpayers engaged in international transactions. It mandates the issuance of a draft assessment order and sets a structured pathway for resolving disputes through the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).
• Draft Assessment Order vs. Final Assessment Order: A draft order is a tentative assessment that allows taxpayers to accept or object to proposed variations in income. The final order is issued after addressing any objections, either accepting the initial variations or modifying them based on DRP directions.
• Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP): A body that reviews objections raised by taxpayers against draft assessment orders, ensuring that assessments are fair and justified.
• Null and Void (Ab Initio): A legal term indicating that an action or document has no legal effect from the outset due to inherent flaws or illegalities.
• Functus Officio: A Latin term meaning that once a jurisdictional authority has exercised its power, it cannot exercise it again in the same matter.

Conclusion