9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] on the identical issue, we are of the considered view that as per limitation prescribed under section 153 of the Act that assessment order was required to be passed within a period of 21 months from the end of assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2016-17 and a further period of 12 months is to be added in case reference is made under section 92CA of the Act to the Ld. TPO, meaning thereby the period of 60 days expires to pass the transfer pricing order on 31.10.2019 whereas the transfer pricing order has been passed in this case on 01.11.2019 i.e. beyond the period of 60 days, hence barred by limitation. Since the order passed by the Ld. TPO is held to be barred by limitation the same is illegal, null and void ab-initio, hence quashed. - Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said Transfer Pricing Order had in law, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation and void ab initie; hence the same is liable to be quashed. 3. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO, the AO and the Hon'ble DRP have exceeded their jurisdiction by computing the transfer pricing addition without applying any of the prescribed methods as provided under section 92C(1) of the Act and thus their orders on this issue are bad in law Factual 4. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the AO, under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP have erred in not appreciating the factual details, submissions and various documentary evidences which demonstrate rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as rejected the same. The Assessing Officer (AO) framed the assessment by making addition on account of TP adjustment to the tune of Rs.1,41,63,877/- on account of ALP of international transactions. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. DRP/AO the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeal. 5. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto. 6. Assessee has filed the present appeal raising grounds challenging the arms length price of the international transactions by way of tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the period of limitation referred to in section 153 of the Act.) Number of Days in December 2019 30 Number of Days in December 2019 30 Total Number of Days 60 Deadline for passing TP Order for AY 2016-17 31 October 2019 Date of TP order passed for AY 2016-17 1 November 2019 Delay 1 Day Delay in passing TP order 9. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee while discussing the factual position qua the order passed by the Ld. TPO and statutory provisions applicable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to in section 153 expires i.e. 21 months. 13. Undisputedly the TP order was passed on 01.11.2019 whereas the Ld. TPO was required to pass the order within 60 days prior to the date of which period of limitation referred to in section 153 of the Act expires. 14. Now the question arises as to how the period of 60 days prior to the date of transfer pricing order i.e. 01.11.2019 is to be computed. Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while dealing with the issue held that for computing the period of 60 days, the last date as per section 153 should be excluded. Operative part of the judgment is extracted for ready perusal as under :- 30. Now, coming to the question of how the 60 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.2381/Del/2014 order dated 11.03.2021 in favour of the assessee by following M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) case rendered by Hon ble Madras High Court. 16. In view of what has been discussed above and following the order passed by the Hon ble Madras High Court in case of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of ECL Finance Ltd. (supra) and Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) on the identical issue, we are of the considered view that as per limitation prescribed under section 153 of the Act that assessment order was required to be passed within a period of 21 months from the end of assessment year i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
