Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1453 - AT - Income TaxValidity of order passed by the TPO u/s 92CA(3) - Computation of period of limitation - no draft assessment order was to be issued in this case - HELD THAT - The assessment order was framed in this case on 30th October 2018 but then there is no dispute that if no draft assessment order was to be issued in this case, the assessment would have been time barred on 31st December 2017. Once we hold that no draft assessment order could have been issued in this case, as the provisions of Section 144C(1) could not have been invoked in this case, the time limit of completion of assessment was available only upto 31st December 2017. The mere issuance of draft assessment order, when it was legally not required to be issued, cannot end up enhancing the time limit for completing the assessment under section 143(3). Accordingly, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Office must be held to be time barred. Assessee appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Barred by limitation under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) 2. Validity of draft assessment order dated 29th December 2017 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) 3. Dismissal of objections by Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) 4. Time limit for completing assessment under section 143(3) Issue 1: Barred by limitation under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) The appellant contended that the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) was barred by limitation. The appellant argued that the draft assessment order dated 29th December 2017 was incorrect, illegal, and void ab initio. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) was criticized for dismissing objections without considering merits and for alleging a delay in filing objections, which the appellant claimed was within the prescribed time limit. Issue 2: Validity of draft assessment order dated 29th December 2017 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) The dispute arose from the Assessing Officer proposing to assess interest income at 20% instead of the declared 10% under the India Cyprus Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The appellant challenged the draft assessment order, arguing that no variation existed between the returned and assessed income, rendering the order invalid. Legal provisions were cited to support the argument that no draft assessment order should have been issued in this case, making the assessment time-barred. Issue 3: Dismissal of objections by Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) The appellant raised concerns about the DRP dismissing objections without examining the merits of the case and alleging a delay in filing. The appellant argued that the objections were filed within the prescribed time limit and criticized the DRP's refusal to condone the alleged delay. Legal precedents were cited to support the appellant's position regarding the dismissal of objections by the DRP. Issue 4: Time limit for completing assessment under section 143(3) The judgment highlighted that if no draft assessment order was required to be issued, the assessment would have been time-barred by 31st December 2017. The court upheld the appellant's argument that the mere issuance of a draft assessment order, when not legally required, could not extend the time limit for completing the assessment under section 143(3). Consequently, the assessment order was deemed time-barred, rendering other grievances raised in the appeal irrelevant. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed based on the finding that the assessment was time-barred. The judgment emphasized the importance of legal provisions and precedents in determining the validity of draft assessment orders and the time limit for completing assessments under section 143(3).
|