9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 92BA - This being so, the assessee is not entitled for extension of time limit provided u/s 153(4) by extended period of another one year which is applicable only where the reference to the TPO has been validly made within the frame work of law. We find palpable merit in the plea expounded on behalf of the assessee. It has been demonstrated in the instant case that the threshold monetary limit of Rs.5 crore was not available to the Assessing Officer to characterize the transactions with AE as SDT to enable him to make a reference to the TPO. The order of the TPO u/s 92CA(3) is thus a nonest and a nullity in the eyes of law. Consequently, the extension of time under erstwhile provisions of Section 153 for passing the assessment order ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation. ii) The order has been passed after making additions without following the principle of natural justice. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the fact that the assessee company has SDT of Rs. 4,94,91,268/- as such the same were not required for referring to the TPO per provisions of section 92BA c) The Ld. CIT(A) has also ignored the fact that the TPO in the order passed u/s 92BA(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 has held the details of domestic transactions of Rs. 4,94,91,268/- that was also below Rs. 5 crores as such those were not to be referred to the TPO. d) That per provisions of section 153 of the Act, the -time limit provided for making assessment was acquired on 31.12.2016 whereas the order has been passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (f) That assessee company is an excisable unit 8s excise duty has also been paid on Sales thereof; (g) That Quantitative Details of Opening Stock, Purchases, Sales, Work In Progress 8s Closing Stock, if OK, how the purchases can be bogus; (h) That the Ld. AO have not pointed out any discrepancy in the books of accounts; (i) That the assessee was not provided opportunity to cross examine Sh. R.P. Bhatia, whose statements have been used for making additions in the hands of assessee; (j) That the principle of natural justice has not been followed, while passing the assessment order and making the additions in the hands of assessee. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue also reproduced herein for ready ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5,16,25,000/- made by AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by treating as unexplained credits the amounts claimed to have been received by the assessee as Share Application money and Share Premium Money during the year. 5. The appellate crave leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the impugned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation and thus bad in law. It was submitted that a re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time limit available for passing the assessment stood expired on 30.12.2016 whereas the Assessing Officer has passed the impugned assessment order on 31.12.2017 taking into account the extension of time limit under Section 153 of the Act for which reference was wrongly made to the Transfer Pricing Officer to elicitly gain time for assessment despite objections. It was thus contended that the impugned assessment order suffers from the incurable defect of bar of limitation and thus wholly unsustainable in law. 4. The Ld. DR for the Revenue on the other hand resisted the challenge to bar of limitation for passing assessment order and relied upon the order of the lower authorities. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y limit of Rs.5 crore was not available to the Assessing Officer to characterize the transactions with AE as SDT to enable him to make a reference to the TPO. The order of the TPO under Section 92CA(3) is thus a nonest and a nullity in the eyes of law. Consequently, the extension of time under erstwhile provisions of Section 153 for passing the assessment order based on such nonest order from TPO is not available to the Assessing Officer in the instant case. The Assessing Officer thus could not legitimise the assessment order passed beyond the ordinary time limit of 31.12.2016 available under Section 153 of the Act. The impugned assessment order passed is barred by limitation and hence bad in law and thus requires to be quashed. The other g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
