- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32482-DB WA No. 560 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL No.560 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE ROOM No.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI - 110003, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(1), BENGALURU. …APPELLANT (BY SRI E.I SANMATHI, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) AND: 1. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD., 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, RMZ INFINITY, No.3, TOWER E, OLD MADRAS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560016. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. VINAY MANGLA. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PRERNA PONAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2023 IN WP No.24673/2023 (T-IT) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32482-DB WA No. 560 of 2024 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue, and Smt. Prerna Ponappa, learned counsel for the respondent-Assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, filed by the Revenue, is directed against the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.24673/2023 (T-IT). 3. The respondent-Assessee filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2020-21 and a revised return thereafter. The Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) on 27.09.2023. The respondent-Assessee was entitled either to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32482-DB WA No. 560 of 2024 draft order or to convey acceptance of the same. The Assessee filed objections before the DRP but did not communicate the said objections to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order on 31.10.2023 and issued a demand notice. The said order was the subject matter of the writ petition. 3.1 The learned Single Judge, having found that the Assessee had filed objections before the DRP within the prescribed thirty (30) days, set aside the Final Assessment Order, the demand notice, and the initiation of penalty proceedings, and restored the matter to the stage of Section 144C(5) of the Act. 3.2. The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the said order, contending that communication of the objections filed before the DRP to the Assessing Officer is mandatory, which is not complied. 4. Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue, submits that, in view of Section 144C(2) of the Act, communication to the Assessing Officer regarding the objections filed before the DRP is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32482-DB WA No. 560 of 2024 mandatory. He further submits that, admittedly, no such communication was made to the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in passing the Final Assessment Order. 5. On the other hand, Smt. Prerna Ponappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Assessee, submits that subsequent to the order of the learned Single Judge, the DRP has issued directions on 24.06.2024 and, pursuant thereto, the Assessing Officer has passed the Final Assessment Order on 31.07.2024. It is submitted that the respondent-Assessee has preferred an appeal against the said orders before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’). In view of the aforesaid developments, learned counsel submits that the present writ appeal has been rendered infructuous. 6. The controversy raised in this appeal is limited. The Revenue contends that the objections filed before the DRP were not communicated to the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in passing the Final Assessment Order. It is further contended that such communication to the Assessing Officer is mandatory. Be that as it may, in view of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32482-DB WA No. 560 of 2024 the subsequent developments during the pendency of this appeal, this Court is not inclined to enter upon adjudication of the said dispute. As is evident from the record, the DRP has issued directions under Section 144C(5) of the Act on 24.06.2024, and the Assessing Officer has passed the Final Assessment Order on 31.07.2024. The Assessee, being aggrieved thereby, has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Insofar as the merits of the assessment order and the directions of the DRP are concerned, the parties are already before the Tribunal. Since larger issues are to be considered by the Tribunal, the question of mandatory communication to the Assessing Officer after filing objections before the DRP, in the present case, would only be an academic exercise. This Court is not inclined to undertake such an exercise. However, the contention regarding the mandatory requirement of communication to the Assessing Officer after filing objections before the DRP is kept open. 8. With the above observations, the writ appeal stands disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32482-DB WA No. 560 of 2024 In view of the disposal of the main appeal, pending interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of as having become infructuous. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7