9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 153(1) r.w.s. 153(4), the same should have been passed on or before 31.12.2019. The same is accordingly, liable to be quashed. Accepting first two legal propositions of Ld. Sr. Counsel, we would hold that the assessment would be nullity since it is barred by limitation. Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive orders have been passed by lower authorities and these dates would assume great significance. For ease of reference, the same could be tabulated as under: - Description Date Date of Order passed by Ld. TPO u/s 92CA(3) 01.11.2019 Date of Draft Assessment Order passed u/s 144C(1) 30.12.2019 Date of Filing Objections before the DRP 29.01.2020 Date of DRP Directions u/s 144C(5) 26.03.2021 Date of Final Assessment Order 30.04.2021 3. The Ld. Sr. Counsel Shri Ajay Vohra, at the outset, submitted that the assessment proceedings would be nullity in terms of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in bunch of appeals titled as M/s Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. & ors. (WP Nos. 32688 of 2019 & ors.) order dated 07.09.2020 as confirmed by Division Bench in revenue's Writ Appeals (WA) Nos. 1120 of 2021 & ors. in its order dated 31.03.2022. The copies of the decisions have been placed on record. 4. The first and foremost contention raised by Ld. Sr. Counsel is that the order passed by Ld. TPO on 01.11.2019 is barred by limitation since as per explicit language of Sec.92CA(3A), the order of TPO should have been passed on or before 31.10.2019. Since this order is time barre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed u/s 92CA(3) was barred by limitation by one day. It was noted that in terms of Sec.92CA(3A), an order has to be passed by TPO before 60 days prior to the last day on which the period of limitation referred to in Sec.153 for making assessment expires. The assessment is to be completed within 21 months from end of assessment year in which the income was first assessable. Therefore. Counting from 31.03.2017, the assessment was to be framed on or before 31.12.2019. The period of 60 days prior thereto would run till 01.11.2019 and any date prior thereto would mean 31st of October or before. Since the order was passed on 01.11.2019, the same would be barred by limitation. The relevant observations were as under: - "19. The revenue relies on the amendment to Section 92CA(4) which requires the Assessing Officer to compute total income of an assessee after receipt of the transfer pricing order. Prior to 01.06.2007, it was mandatory for the Assessing Authority to accept the ALP determined by the TPO and the phrase used in the provision was 'having regard to'. Post amendment, the provision made it compulsory for the Assessing Authority to adopt the ALP as determined by the TPO and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 144C prescribe mandatory time limits both pre and post the stage of passing of a transfer pricing order. Assessments involving transfer pricing issues are different and distinct from regular assessments and the intention of Legislature is to fast track such assessments. Bearing in mind the specialized nature of such assessments, a separate set of Officers attend to the framing of assessments and the DRP has been constituted for redressal of disputes involving TP issues, in a timely fashion. In this scheme of things, I am unable to accept the submission that the period of 60 days stipulated for passing of an order of transfer pricing, is only directory or a rough and ready guideline. This argument is rejected. 30. Now, coming to the question of how the 60 day period is to be computed, the critical question would be whether the period of 60 days would be computed including the 31st of December or excluding it. Section 153 states that no order of assessment shall be made at any time after the expiry of 21 months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. The submission of the revenue is to the effect that limitation expires only on 12 a m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es is that now the division bench has dismissed the Writ appeals of the revenue and confirmed the adjudication of Hon'ble Single Judge. Accordingly, the legal plea as raised by Ld. Sr. Counsel squarely favors the case of the assessee. Therefore, we would hold that considering the statutory time limit, the order passed by Ld. TPO u/s 92CA(3) on 01.11.2019 would be barred by limitation and consequence as mentioned in para- 4 would follow. In other words, this order would be time barred as a result of which the assessee would cease to be an eligible assessee and therefore, the machinery of Sec.144C would not be triggered. The Ld. AO is not required to pass the draft assessment order; DRP would not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Consequently, the final assessment order passed on 30.04.2021 would be barred by limitation since in terms of Sec. 153(1) r.w.s. 153(4), the same should have been passed on or before 31.12.2019. The same is accordingly, liable to be quashed. Accepting first two legal propositions of Ld. Sr. Counsel, we would hold that the assessment would be nullity since it is barred by limitation. Delving into other legal ground as well as entering into the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
