2022 (12) TMI 1530 - SCH - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - assessment barred by Limitation - Timelines u/s 92CA, 144C and 153 - Reference to DRP - order of remand passed by the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer has not taken up the assessment proceedings within a reasonable time and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated by reason of delay As decided by HC 2022 (6) TMI 848 - MADRAS HIGH COURT provisions of Sections 144C and 153 are not mutually exclusive, but are rather mutually inclusive. The period of limitation prescribed u/s 153 (2A) or 153 (3) is applicable, when the matters are remanded back irrespective of whether it is to the Assessing Officer or TPO or the DRP, the duty is on the assessing officer to pass orders. Even in case of remand, the TPO or the DRP have to follow the time limits as provided under the Act. The entire proceedings including the hearing and directions have to be issued by the DRP within 9 months as contemplated under Section 144C (12) of the Income Tax Act - Irrespective of whether the DRP concludes the proceedings and issues directions or not, within 9 months, the Assessing officer is to pass orders within the stipulated time - In matter involving transfer pricing, upon remand to DRP, the Assessing officer is to pass a denova draft order and the entire proceedings as in the original assessment, would have to be completed within 12 months, as the very purpose of extension is to ensure that orders are passed within the extended period, as otherwise the extension becomes meaningless. The outer time limit of 33 months in case of reference to TPO under Section 153, would not refer to draft order, but only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within the time limits prescribed, HELD THAT - Delay condoned. Issue notice. Leave granted.

Summary

The Supreme Court, with Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar, heard the case. The Petitioner was represented by Mr. N. Venkataraman, ASG, and others. The Respondent did not have representation. The Court condoned the delay, issued notice, granted leave, and scheduled the case to be heard along with C.A. No. 6755/2018.