9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 873 - AT - Income TaxValidity of Final Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) as barred by time limitation - HELD THAT - In the context of faceless assessment process time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic document (in this case DRP order) is required to be ascertained by reference to section 13 of Information Technology Act, 2000 which is the basis prescribed under section 144B of Income Tax Act also (refer section 144B (6)(v)). Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GS Chatha Rice Mills 2020 (9) TMI 903 - SUPREME COURT interpreted this very provision. Applying principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, only relevant fact necessary for deciding additional ground 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 26.05.2022 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 26.05.2022. As per section 144C(13) of the Act, assessment had to be completed on or before 30.06.2022. In present case the assessment is completed only on 01.07.2022 i.e., it is time barred null and void. Therefore, impugned assessment order dated 30.06.2022 is set aside being barred by limitation.
Issues:
1. Timeliness and jurisdiction of the final assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. 2. Validity of the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) without a Document Identification Number (DIN). 3. Application of legal precedents and judgments to the present case. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the final assessment order dated 01/07/2022, alleging it was illegal, barred by time limitation, and lacked jurisdiction. The appellant contended that the order was vitiated due to a breach of the time limit set by section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. Citing the case of PCIT vs. Fiberhome India P. Ltd., the appellant argued that the time limits under the Act are mandatory. Additionally, reference was made to judgments such as Louis Drefus company India Private Limited vs. DCIT and the case of Union of India Vs. G. S. Chatha Rice Mills to support the argument that the order was time-barred. 2. The appellant raised a specific ground regarding the validity of the order passed by the DRP without a DIN number, citing a circular from the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). However, during the hearing, this ground was not pressed by the appellant, indicating a shift in focus towards the timeliness and jurisdictional issues of the final assessment order. 3. The appellant relied on various judgments, including Nikon India Private Ltd. vs. ACIT, Honda R & D (India) P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, and Syniverse Technologies Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, to argue that the appeal should be accepted. The appellant contended that the principles established in these cases were applicable to the present situation, emphasizing the importance of adhering to time limits prescribed by the law. 4. The Department of Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the final assessment order was passed within the prescribed time limit as per the communication received from the DRP. Referring to the provisions of the Act, the Department contended that the order was well within the time limit despite the physical receipt of the DRP order on a later date. 5. The Tribunal analyzed the events and dates in comparison to the Nikon case, emphasizing the significance of the time of uploading the DRP order onto the ITBA portal. Relying on the interpretation of section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order in the present case was time-barred and, therefore, set it aside. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the impugned assessment order dated 30.06.2022 as it was deemed to be barred by limitation. The other grounds raised by the appellant were considered academic in nature and left open for future consideration. This comprehensive analysis highlights the key arguments, legal principles, and judgments considered by the Tribunal in reaching its decision to set aside the final assessment order.
|
