9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1339 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - validity of order passed by TPO u/s. 92CA(3) as barred by limitation - HELD THAT - A conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of section 92CA(3A) and 153(1) of the Act would show that the TPO is required to pass order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153 of the Act for making assessment order expires. The period of limitation for passing the assessment order in the instant case expires on 31/03/2014. The time limit for passing the order u/s. 92CA(3A) is sixty days prior to the date on which the limitation referred in section 153 of the Act expires. Thus, the limitation in the present case for passing the order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act expires on 29/01/2014. The TPO passed the order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act on 30/01/2014. Ergo, the order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act is surely time barred by one day. Reference to DRP can only be made by eligible assessee - Eligible assessee mean any person in whose case variation arises as a consequence of the order of the TPO passed u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act. The order has to be a valid order. In the instant case since, the order of TPO was beyond the period of limitation it is not a valid order. Therefore, there is no eligible assessee in terms of the definition provided in sub-section (15) to section 144C of the Act . If there is no eligible assessee, no reference to DRP could have been made. Once the substratum for making the assessment under transfer pricing mechanism erodes the subsequent proceedings emanating from flawed foundation is without jurisdiction. We find merit in the additional grounds of appeal - The assessee succeeds on the aforesaid legal grounds.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) order dated 30/01/2014. 2. Validity of the assessment order dated 29/01/2015. 3. Admission of additional grounds of appeal at a belated stage. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) Order Dated 30/01/2014: The assessee contended that the TPO's order was time-barred as per Section 92CA(3A) read with Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order was passed on 30/01/2014, while the last permissible date was 29/01/2014, making the order one day late. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in Pfizer Healthcare India (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT, which clarified that the period of 60 days should exclude the final day, making the TPO's order beyond the permissible limit. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the TPO's order was time-barred and invalid. 2. Validity of the Assessment Order Dated 29/01/2015: Since the TPO's order was invalid, the assessment order based on it was also challenged. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was dependent on a valid TPO order. Given that the TPO's order was time-barred, the assessment order lacked jurisdiction and was therefore invalid. The Tribunal emphasized that an assessment order cannot stand on a flawed foundation. 3. Admission of Additional Grounds of Appeal at a Belated Stage: The assessee filed additional grounds of appeal in 2022, challenging the validity of the TPO and assessment orders. The Department opposed this, citing the delay. However, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in National Thermal Power Company vs. CIT, which allows legal/jurisdictional issues to be raised at the appellate stage if they go to the root of the matter. The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds as they were purely legal and did not require fresh evidence. Separate Judgments: The Tribunal also dealt with similar issues in the cases of ITA No.1576/Mum/2015 and ITA No.2340/Mum/2015. In these cases, the Tribunal followed the same reasoning and held that the TPO's order was time-barred by one day, making the subsequent assessment order invalid. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal as infructuous, given that the foundational orders were invalid. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal by declaring the TPO's order and the assessment order invalid due to being time-barred. The additional grounds of appeal were admitted despite the delay, as they were legal in nature and went to the root of the matter. The Tribunal's decision was consistent across similar cases, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines.
|
