9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April 2017 and the impugned order was framed by the learned Pr. CIT dated on 25th February 2019. As relying on General Finance Company Vs. ACIT [ 2002 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT ] we hold that since the provision itself stood omitted at the time when the order was passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT, which is undisputed fact, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the question of holding the assessment order as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue does not arise on account of non-reference to the TPO with respect to the provisions for the specified domestic transactions prescribed under section 92BA of the Act which stood omitted. Hence it is hereby quashed. The impugned order is thus quashed and the grounds raised i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th July 2016. 5. Subsequently, the Pr. CIT was of the view that the case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny under TP risk parameters and therefore it was obligatory on the part of the AO to refer the matter to the TPO for determining the ALP in pursuance to the direction of the CBDT in instruction no. 03/2016 dated 10-03-2016 and instruction no. 15/2015 dated 16-10-2015. But the AO has not done so and framed the assessment order without making any reference to the TPO which is in violation of the CBDT directions. Accordingly the learned Pr. CIT set aside the assessment order framed by the AO as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct was omitted by the Finance Act 2017 which was effective from 1st April 2017 and the impugned order was framed by the learned Pr. CIT dated on 25th February 2019. 10.1. Accordingly, it was vehemently argued by the learned AR before us that the impact of omission of this provision would be construed that such provision was never there on the statute book. The learned AR further argued that it is a settled principle of law that where a provision of statute is omitted, it should be deemed that such provision was never been part of the statute at any point of time. In this regard we find the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of General Finance Company Vs. ACIT reported in (2002) 124 Taxman 432 (SC) where the Hon'ble Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the Act, section 276DD stood omitted from the Act but not repealed and, hence, a prosecution could not have been launched or continued by invoking section 6 after its omission. 10.2. Respectfully following the above decision of the Apex Court we hold that since the provision itself stood omitted at the time when the order was passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT, which is undisputed fact, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the question of holding the assessment order as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue does not arise on account of non-reference to the TPO with respect to the provisions for the specified domestic transactions prescribed under section 92BA of the Act which stood omitted. Hence it is hereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
