9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s has rectified the assessment order u/s 154 thereby giving effect to directions of the DRP. As per Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer has to pass the assessment order within the prescribed period otherwise the assessment becomes time barred. Assessing Officer has followed the statutory provisions of Section 143(3) thereby passing assessment order. But as per the binding section i.e. Section 144C(10) of the Act, the mandatory provision was not followed by the Assessing Officer, thereby it is binding on the Assessing Officer to follow the directions of the DRP. Therefore, the assessment becomes null and void. As regards rectification, there is no mistake committed on part of Assessing Officer, in fact Assessing Officer was very well aware that the DRP has given certain directions so it could not be termed that there is a mistake apparent on record. When the Assessing Officer has deliberately chosen not to follow a binding provisions u/s 144C of the Act while passing the final assessment order, the Assessment Order, itself becomes null and void. The case laws referred by the Ld. AR are categorically highlighting the same position of law. The submissions of the Ld. DR that after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01 due to Power Grid Corporation India Limited in spite of directions from the Ld. DRP. 4.2 re considering the amount of sundry creditors as INR 441,635,541 by including expenses payable of INR 21,536,283 as against the amount of INR 420,099,258 appearing in the audited financial statements as on March 31, 2009. 4.3 not providing any opportunity to the Appellant before making disallowance in respect of expenses payable amounting to INR 21,536,283. 4.4 not providing relief of INR 211,150,180 relating to imports from entities other than group entities in spite of filing complete party-wise details of sundry creditors along with confirmation from Equant Network Systems Ltd., Ireland for taking over/owning up liability amounting to INR 396,771,305. 4.5 invoking section 41(1) of the Act mechanically and without appreciating the fact that liability towards sundry creditors amounting to INR 211,150,180 pertains to purchase of capital assets which cannot be considered as a trading liability. 4.6 not appreciating the fact that there is no cessation or remission of liability as the amount is still appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05, the appellant has been continuously incurring losses and accordingly no deduction under section 80 IA(4) of the Act was claimed. 7.3 The Ld.AO has failed to appreciate the fact that appellant reported losses in its current year s return of income and accordingly no deduction u/s 80 IA (4) of the Act could have been claimed. 7.4 The Ld. AO has erred in stating that the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions required for claiming deduction u/s 80 IA (4) of the Act. 7.5 The Ld. AO has further erred in stating that the appellant was given full opportunity to furnish the relevant details/ explanations in this regard. 8. That the Ld. AO has erred in not granting credit of taxes deducted at source to the extent of INR 449,488. 9. The Ld. AO has erred in calculating interest u/s 234 B of the Act. 10. The Ld. AO has erred in initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 3. The assessee company filed a revised return of income on 13.10.2010 declaring a loss of ₹ 37,45,15, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the order of the TPO and passed the final Assessment Order thereby adding the Transfer Pricing adjustment which was recomputed and held Nil by the DRP. The Revenue authorities cannot overlap the statutory provisions, which are mandatory and has to be followed by the Revenue under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order itself is bad in law and the same should be quashed at the threshold. 8. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed the order as the assessment was getting time barred and Transfer Pricing Officer has not given the order giving effect well within the stipulated time for final assessment. The Ld. DR further submitted that after passing assessment order, the Transfer Pricing Officer has given final effect to the DRP direction and thereafter the Assessing Officer u/s 154 has rectified the original assessment order well within time thereby deleting the entire Transfer Pricing adjustment. Thus, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessment order is just and proper, therefore, it should not be quashed. 9. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal: i. Flextr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, the Assessing Officer should have taken into account the DRP s direction and would have taken cognizance in the final assessment order, but the Assessing Officer choose not to follow the DRP s direction. Subsequently, when the Transfer Pricing Officer passed the order giving effect to DRP s directions vide order dated 21.02.2014, the Assessing Officer on suo moto basis has rectified the assessment order u/s 154 thereby giving effect to directions of the DRP. As per Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer has to pass the assessment order within the prescribed period otherwise the assessment becomes time barred. The Assessing Officer has followed the statutory provisions of Section 143(3) thereby passing assessment order. But as per the binding section i.e. Section 144C(10) of the Act, the mandatory provision was not followed by the Assessing Officer, thereby it is binding on the Assessing Officer to follow the directions of the DRP. Therefore, the assessment becomes null and void. As regards rectification, there is no mistake committed on part of Assessing Officer, in fact Assessing Officer was very well aware that the DRP has given certain directions so it could not be termed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
