Siddhant Rastogi Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 21.05.2026 passed under Sections 144C(3) and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential demand notice under Section 156. The petitioner, a professional seafarer who claimed non-resident status for Assessment Year 2024-25, had filed his return after claiming exemption concerning remuneration received for services rendered outside India. He stated that notices issued under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were not received because an incorrect email address had been furnished on the Income Tax portal. He first became aware of the proceedings upon receiving the draft assessment order dated 14.03.2026 under Section 144C(1), proposing total income of Rs.79,63,350.
The petitioner filed detailed objections on 27.03.2026 through the Income Tax e-filing portal and received an acknowledgement. He contended that the Assessing Officer failed to consider those objections and incorrectly recorded that no reply to the draft assessment order had been filed. He also contended that no hearing was provided before the final assessment order was passed.
The Revenue opposed the writ petition, submitting that Section 144C(2)(b) requires objections to the draft assessment order to be filed both before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the Assessing Officer. The petitioner had filed his reply only before the Assessing Officer and had admittedly not filed objections before the DRP. According to the Revenue, this enabled the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment under Section 144C(3) on the basis of the draft assessment order.
