2021 (5) TMI 1043 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 144C - Period of limitation - assessee vehemently stated that the assessment order is barred by limitation in as much as there was no need to frame a draft assessment order as per provisions of section 144C(13) - AO proposed that the interest income is to be taxed @ 20% u/s 115A(1)(a)(ii) - HELD THAT - AO shall forward the draft of the proposed order if he proposes to make any variation in the income or loss returned. The aforestated proposal in the draft assessment order clearly show that the AO did not intend to make any variation in the income of the assessee therefore the assessment order should have been framed as per the provisions of section 153 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act meaning thereby that the assessment order dated 07.09.2018 is barred by limitation. In the light of the facts mentioned elsewhere when considered within the provisions of section 144C(1) we have no hesitation to hold that the assessment order is barred by limitation.

Summary

Issues:
1. Barred by limitation of assessment order
2. Eligibility of beneficial tax rate under India-Cyprus DTAA

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the assessment order for Assessment Year 2014-15, contending it was time-barred and disputed the Assessing Officer's decision on the beneficial tax rate eligibility. The Assessing Officer disallowed the treaty benefit, assessing income at 20%. The appellant's objections before the DRP were unsuccessful.

2. The appellant argued that the assessment order was time-barred as per section 144C(1), stating the draft order did not propose any variation in income. The Tribunal concurred, holding the assessment order was indeed barred by limitation, precluding the need to delve into the case's merits. The appeal was allowed based on this finding.

3. The Tribunal's decision rested on the interpretation of statutory provisions governing the forwarding of draft assessment orders to eligible assesses under section 144C(1). The Tribunal found that since no variation in income was proposed in the draft order, the assessment order should have been framed under different provisions, rendering it time-barred.

4. The Tribunal's analysis centered on the procedural aspect of the assessment order's validity, emphasizing the Assessing Officer's obligation to forward a draft order if proposing any income variation. By concluding the assessment was time-barred, the Tribunal avoided delving into the substantive issues raised by the appellant regarding the beneficial tax rate eligibility under the India-Cyprus DTAA.

5. The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of adherence to procedural requirements in tax assessments, underscoring the significance of statutory provisions governing the framing of assessment orders. By ruling the assessment order as time-barred, the Tribunal provided relief to the appellant without delving into the substantive tax issues raised during the proceedings.