HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.7896 OF 2019 ORDER (Per Sanjay Kumar, J) 1. petitioner company seeks writ of mandamus to Income Tax Authorities to restore its objections in relation to draft assessment order for A.Y.2015-16 as they were filed within statutory timeline of thirty days from date of receipt of said draft assessment order. As consequence, it prays for setting aside of final assessment order passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad, for A.Y.2015-16. 2. In affidavit filed in support of writ petition, authorized signatory of petitioner company stated that they received draft assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 92CA(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, Act of 1961 ), on 27.12.2018 and petitioner company filed its objections thereto before Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bangalore, on 24.01.2019, and before Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad, Assessing Officer, on 25.01.2019, well within statutory timeline of thirty days. It also addressed letter dated 07.01.2019 to Assessing Officer stating fact that it had received draft assessment order only on 27.12.2018 and was thinking of filing its objections against same before Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bangalore. 3. Income Tax authorities however proceeded on ground that draft assessment order was received by petitioner company on 17.12.2018 and rejected its objections. This led to passing of final assessment order dated 27.02.2019, raising demand of 2 Rs.31,13,71,207/-. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bangalore, also passed order to same effect holding that petitioner company had not filed its objections within time. 4. We may note that Section 144C of Act of 1961 provides for forwarding of draft assessment order to assessee so that he could, within thirty days from date of receipt thereof, file objections before Dispute Resolution Panel and Assessing Officer as to variation sought to be made by Assessing Officer to income or loss returned. Section 144C (5) requires Dispute Resolution Panel, before which objections are filed by assessee, to consider same and issue such directions as it thinks fit for guidance of Assessing Officer to complete assessment. In terms of CBDT Circular No.5 of 2010 dated 03.06.2010 (Para No.45.4), it is choice of assessee whether to file objections against draft assessment order before Dispute Resolution Panel or adopt normal channel of filing appeal. Circular further provides that in case assessee exercises option of filing objections against draft assessment order before Dispute Resolution Panel, it cannot withdraw such objections and thereafter opt for normal channel of filing appeal. 5. In light of aforestated scheme, date of filing of objections by petitioner company assumes great importance, inasmuch as its statutory right of filing appeal stood extinguished. According to petitioner company, it received draft assessment order only on 27.12.2018 and its objections before Dispute Resolution Panel-1 at Bangalore were filed well within time. objections would however be beyond stipulated thirty days if draft assessment order was received by petitioner company on 17.12.2018. 3 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad, filed counter-affidavit asserting that draft assessment order was received by petitioner company on 17.12.2018. He filed copy of data received from postal authorities in support of this assertion. 7. authorized signatory of petitioner company thereupon filed reply denying assertion of Deputy Commissioner that it had received draft assessment order on 17.12.2018. Therewith, authorized signatory also filed information collected from postal authorities with regard to service of said draft assessment order. 8. When this Court took up matter for hearing on 31.07.2019, we noticed that there was discrepancy in documents filed by Deputy Commissioner and petitioner company, inasmuch as date 17.12.2018 was added in postal data furnished to petitioner company but same did not find mention in postal data given to Income Tax Authorities. That apart, case of petitioner company was that other two consignments which were mentioned in postal data along with consignment pertaining to draft assessment order were received on 27.12.2018 and therefore, it was not possible that third consignment alone would have been served on 17.12.2018. 9. We therefore directed Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned senior standing counsel for revenue, to get instructions as to discrepancy with regard to date of delivery of draft assessment order upon petitioner company. Thereupon, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad, addressed letter dated 02.08.2019 to learned counsel, wherein he stated that Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Secunderabad Division, was asked to give clarification once again as to when draft assessment order was actually delivered upon 4 petitioner company. By letter dated 02.08.2019, Senior Superintendent replied that delivery date was erroneously communicated earlier as 17.12.2018 and that article was actually delivered on 27.12.2018. letter dated 02.08.2019 received from Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Secunderabad, is placed on record. 10. In light of this admitted fact that draft assessment order was served upon petitioner company only on 27.12.2018, objections filed by it on 24/25.01.2019 were well within time. action of Assessing Officer in proceeding with final assessment on ground that said objections were filed beyond time and action of Dispute Resolution Panel in rejecting said objections, on same ground, therefore cannot be countenanced. 11. writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside final assessment order dated 27.02.2019 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bangalore, shall consider objections of petitioner company submitted on 24.01.2019 as per Section 144C(5) and (6) of Act of 1961 and issue necessary directions to Assessing Officer to complete assessment of petitioner company for A.Y.2015-16. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in light of this final order. No order as to costs. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR JUSTICE P.KESHAVA RAO 20th AUGUST, 2019 PGS Adama India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 11, Hyderabad / Dispute Resolution Panel 1, Bengaluru / Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Hyderabad