9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1116 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 144C(13) as time barred - applicability of time limits u/s 144C(13), and the legality of the final assessment order - HELD THAT - Applying principles laid down in case of GS Chatha Rice Mills 2020 (9) TMI 903 - SUPREME COURT only relevant fact necessary for deciding in present appeal relating to time barred assessment, is time of uploading by DRP of DRP order onto ITBA portal. Intimation letter to DRP order unambiguously shows 27th April 2022 as date of uploading of DRP order. This fact cannot be disputed. Except this critical and relevant information everything else (like when order is visible to AO, date of uploading some document by DCIT/ACIT circle 2 (1) (1) Delhi) has been submitted by Respondents. It is fair to conclude that date of uploading DRP order on ITBA portal is 27.04.2022. As per section 144C(13) of the Act, assessment had to be completed on or before 31.05.2022. In present case the assessment is completed only on 30.6.2022 i.e., it is time barred null and void. Therefore, impugned assessment order dated 30.06.2022 is set aside being barred by limitation - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues:
1. Assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Arm's Length Price determination for international transactions. 3. Bar of limitation in final assessment order. 4. Mandatory timelines under section 144C(13). 5. Faceless assessment process and time of dispatch and receipt of electronic documents. 6. Application of legal judgments to support arguments. Analysis: 1. The appeal pertains to an order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. The case involved the assessment of the appellant's total income, which was selected for scrutiny under the faceless assessment scheme. The appellant had entered into international transactions with associated enterprises, leading to a determination of the Arm's Length Price by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) with approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). 2. The appellant challenged the final assessment order on the grounds of being time-barred and non est in law. Legal representatives cited the judgment in the case of Nikon India Private Ltd. vs. ACIT to support their argument. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments were also referenced to emphasize the mandatory nature of timelines under section 144C(13) and the consequences of non-compliance. 3. The Departmental Representative contested the applicability of the Nikon India Private Ltd. judgment and highlighted the communication timeline of the DRP order. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax's affidavit detailed the transfer of the assessment case and the circulation of DRP directions, emphasizing compliance with procedural requirements. 4. The ITAT Delhi Bench analyzed the events and dates in the present case compared to the Nikon case to determine the timeliness of the assessment process. Referring to the Information Technology Act and the Income Tax Act, the Bench concluded that the assessment order passed on 30.06.2022 was time-barred and null and void due to non-compliance with the prescribed timeline under section 144C(13). 5. Considering the faceless assessment process and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Bench focused on the date of uploading the DRP order onto the ITBA portal. The conclusive date of 27.04.2022 for uploading the DRP order led to the finding that the assessment completed on 30.06.2022 was beyond the statutory limitation period, rendering the assessment order invalid. 6. Ultimately, the ITAT Delhi Bench allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the assessment order dated 30.06.2022 as time-barred. The judgment emphasized the importance of adherence to statutory timelines in the assessment process and the implications of non-compliance. Conclusion: The ITAT Delhi Bench's detailed analysis and application of legal precedents highlight the significance of procedural compliance and adherence to statutory timelines in the assessment process. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal principles governing time-bound assessments and the consequences of failing to meet prescribed deadlines.
|
