9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to take on record their submissions and give effect to the directions of the DRP. Further, the assessee undertook to provide any clarifications required. TPO took into consideration the modified order passed by the DRP and the submissions of the assessee, passed a giving effect to order dated 10.2.2015 and communicated the same to the AO, who, in turn, passed the final assessment order dated 26.2.2015. We are of the clear view that the Tribunal was right in holding that there is no jurisdictional error to invalidate the proceedings in toto and the communication of a copy of the directions of the DRP dated 12.3.2014 to the AO, stated to have been received by the AO on 21.3.2014, is not a direction within the scope of Sub-Section (5) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The assessee has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law : i. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and law, the Tribunal was right in concluding that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was not barred by limitation ? ii. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and law, the Tribunal was right in not quashing the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in violation of the provisions of Section 144C(13) of the Act? And iii. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and law, the Tribunal was right in concluding that non compliance with the directions of an Appellate Aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act vide order dated 31.10.2012. 7. As against the final assessment order dated 31.10.2012, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which, by order dated 22.5.2013, set aside the order of the DRP and restored the matter back to the file of the DRP to pass a speaking order stating all the objections of the assessee and disposing them of by giving cogent reasons for adjudication of the objections of the assessee. It was further stated in the order dated 22.5.2013 that the DRP, before adjudicating the issues, should afford reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. There was also a direction that after receiving the order of the DRP, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions and the due date for passing the final assessment order as per Section 144C(13) of the Act was 30.4.2014 whereas the final assessment order was passed on 26.2.2015, which is clearly beyond the time limit prescribed under Sub-Section (13) of Section 144C of the Act. 11. After referring to Sub-Sections (8), (9), (11) and (12) of Section 144C of the Act, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that if the view taken by the Tribunal is adopted, then unilaterally the limitation prescribed under the Statute would be extended and if the TPO does not pass orders within reasonable time, then the statutory time limit prescribed under Sub-Section (13) of Section 144C of the Act loses its significance. In the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the final assessment order dated 31.10.2012, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and after hearing the Revenue, came to the conclusion that the DRP did not deal with the objections raised by the assessee in a proper manner and that no reasons were assigned in support of its conclusion and therefore, remanded the matter to the DRP for considering the objections raised by the assessee and for passing a speaking order. The DRP, on remand, took up the contentions raised by the assessee before it and passed an order dated 12.3.2014 under Section 144C(5) read with Section 144C(8) of the Act. 14. Interestingly, the DRP did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer, stated to have been received by the Assessing Officer on 21.3.2014, is not a direction within the scope of Sub-Section (5) of Section 144C of the Act. The directions issued by the DRP were to the TPO, who was, in turn, required to do the computation after considering the objections of the assessee and it is thereafter they mature into directions under Sub-Section (5) of Section 144C of the Act, which were required to be implemented in terms of Sub-Section (5) of Section 144C of the Act. 17. On facts, we are of the clear view that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the plea raised by the assessee before it. Furthermore, the case of the assessee has to be tested for its correctness in the light of the earl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
