2023 (11) TMI 191 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment u/s 144C - period of limitation - HELD THAT - According to the provisions of section 144C (13) on receipt of the direction of DRP, AO shall, in conformity with the directions, complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month, in which such direction is received. Therefore, it clearly says that the AO gets one month time from the end of the month in which the directions are received. In the present case, the assessee has asked the secretariat of the Dispute Resolution Panel, as per letter dated 15/12/2022, about date of sending the directions to AO. To this, an email reply was received from the ITO Headquarter, DRP 1, Western Zone, Mumbai that the DRP has passed the direction and uploaded the same in ITBA system on 26/5/2022. Therefore, apparently as soon as the order is uploaded on the ITBA website, the time limit of one month will start from the end of the month in which such directions are received/ uploaded. DR could not produce before us any evidence that on 26/5/2022, the directions of the DRP were not received by AO. Therefore, the time limit ends for passing the final order on 30/6/2022. However, the assessment order was passed on 31/7/2022 and therefore, it is barred by limitation. Appeal of assessee allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C (13) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, concerning transfer pricing adjustments.

Issue 1: Limitation of assessment order
The assessee contended that the assessment order was barred by limitation under section 144C (13) read with section 144B (1) of the Income Tax Act. The timeline of events leading to the final assessment order was scrutinized to determine the validity of the order.

The company, engaged in various business activities, filed its return of income, which was later revised. Following scrutiny, the Transfer Pricing Officer identified international transactions, leading to a proposed transfer pricing adjustment. The draft assessment order was passed, incorporating the adjustment, and objections were raised before the Dispute Resolution Panel.

Upon receiving directions from the Panel, the final assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee argued that the final order exceeded the permissible timeline, rendering it barred by limitation. The Tribunal examined the sequence of events and relevant provisions to assess the validity of the assessment order.

The Tribunal noted the dates of the transfer pricing order, draft assessment order, directions from the Panel, and the final assessment order. It emphasized the importance of complying with the timeline stipulated in section 144C (13) of the Act for completing assessments post Panel directions. The Tribunal considered the communication confirming the uploading of directions on the ITBA system as the starting point for the timeline calculation.

After evaluating the contentions and legal provisions, the Tribunal held in favor of the assessee, ruling that the assessment order was indeed barred by limitation and consequently quashed.

The Tribunal allowed ground No.1 of the appeal, concluding that the assessment order was time-barred and therefore invalid. Other grounds of the appeal were left unaddressed, and the appeal of the assessee was ultimately allowed.