Section 144C, 153 of Income Tax Act, 1961—Validity of assessment—In the instant case, the revenue urges the following question of law—
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in entertaining the objection that the assessment order is without jurisdiction null and void and unenforceable?”

Held that—In this case, undisputedly, a final order was passed on 12th March, 2014 and is being sought to be corrected by issue of corrigendum on 16th April, 2014 i.e. after the time to pass the Draft Assessment Order has expired. In fact, the Tribunal placed reliance upon the decision of a single judge of the Madras High Court in Vijay Television (P) Ltd., (supra). This, decision has now been upheld by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Vijay Television (P) Ltd., 407 ITR 642. In the above case, non issue of Draft Assessment Order could not be corrected by issuing a corrigendum to a final Assessment Order. Just as in the facts before the Madras High Court, here also the demand notice and institution of pending proceedings were not withdrawn by the corrigendum. Besides, in International Air Transport Association v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 68 taxmann.com 246 – this Court has held that the Draft Assessment Order is necessary in terms of Section 144C(1) of the Act before the Assessing Officer can proceed to pass a final Assessment Order.
Therefore, if the corrigendum dated 16th April, 2014 and the order dated 12th March, 2014 of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction, the same can be raised at any time and the principle of estoppel will not apply. Mere consent of parties does not bestow jurisdiction, if the order is beyond jurisdiction.

We do not find any substance in this objection of the Revenue. Besides, the finding of the Tribunal in the impugned order that the order of the Assessing Officer was beyond the scope of the remand by order dated 25th January, 2012 of the Tribunal. This more particularly so as the remand by the Tribunal was occasioned on account of failure of the DRP to deal with the objections of the Respondent to the Draft Assessment Order. Therefore, making a reference again to the TPO for fixing the ALP, was not called for. Nothing has been pointed out to us which would even remotely suggest that the same is not correct.[THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15 VERSUS LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,] [2018] [8] [ITCD Online] [25][BOMBAY HIGH COURT]