SYSTRASA PROJECT OFFICE v. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-2

2. Notice. Mr. Puneet Rai, learned counsel for Respondent accepts notice.

3. The question raised by the Petitioner in these writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India concerns the validity of the orders dated 24^^" July 2017 passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel -2 (DRP), the Respondent herein.

4. The background facts are that Petitioner is based in France. In regard to the returns filed by it for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, draft assessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 27'^ October 2016 under Section 144 Cof the Income Tax Act 1961. Being aggrieved by the draft assessment orders, the Petitioner filed objections before the DRP. Aremand reportwas calledfor from the AO whichwas received on 6^^ July 2017.

5. It is stated that at the hearing before the DRP on 20'^ July 2017 it suo motu required the Petitioner to submit a fairly long list of documents/information on or before 24"^ July 2017. Since there was a weekend falling between the two dates and the Petitioner had to get many of the documents sought from Paris, the Petitioner asked for some more time to submit the documents. This was declined by the DRP stating that it had to pass orders by 31^^ July, 2017.

6. The Petitioner states that on 24'^ July 2017 it tendered some of the W.P.(C) Nos. 7114/2017 &7118/2017 documents in the office of the DRP but they were refused to be received. The Petitioner then despatched the saiddocuments by courier to the DRP on 24^^ July 2017 itself with a covering letter where it requested for more time to submit the remaining documents and prayed that the documents tendered may be considered by the DRP. Another set was despatched on 25^^ July 2017 to the DRP by speed post.

7. The Petitioner was surprised to learn subsequently that on 24^^ July 2017 itself the DRP had passed the impugned orders without taking note ofthe documents despatched to it by courier.

8. Clearly, the Respondent acted in violation of the principles of natural justice, since despite the time being granted to the Petitioner till 24th July 2017 to submit documents sought by the DRP, the DRP passed the order on 24^^ July, 2017 itself and that too without taking on record the documents produced by the Petitioner till then. The time given for the Petitioner to do so was just four days. This was clearly unreasonable, particularly, since there was an intervening weekend between 20* and 24* July, 2017. til

9. Forthe above reasons, the Court sets aside the impugned orders dated 24 July, 2017 passed by the DRP for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. The matters are remanded to the DRP to be taken up from the stage at which they were when the impugned orders were passed. The documents submitted by the Petitioner that are already with the DRP and any further documents that the Petitioner may submit not laterthan 31" August, 2017 will be consideredby Page 3 of[4] the DRP andfresh orders passed within a period oftwoweeks thereafter.

10. Thesewritpetitions are disposed of in the above terms.

11. Dasti.

S.MURALIDHAR, J PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J AUGUST 18, 2017 Page 4 of[4]