9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irection is received. Undisputedly, the DRP had framed its directions in terms of the order dated 16 December 2021. A final order of assessment ultimately came to be framed on 26 March 2022 and thus evidently beyond the 30 day period as prescribed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV For the Appellant : Mr. Prashant Meharchandani, Sr. SC with Mr. Akshat Singh, Ms. Ritika Vohra, Advs. For the Respondent : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit L., Mr. Shivam Yadav, Advs. ORDER CM APPLs. 6743/2024 6744/2024 (delay) Bearing in mind the disclosures made, the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application shall stand disposed of. ITA 91/2024 1. The appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereafter proceeds to decide the objections and frame directions to enable the AO to complete the assessment in accordance with Section 144C(5) of the Act. 15. In terms of sub-section (13) of Section 144C of the Act, the AO is mandated to complete the assessment in conformity with the directions as framed by the DRP. That very provision commands the AO to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which such a direction is received. 16. This is evident from Section 144C of the Act which is extracted hereinbelow:- 17. As is manifest from a reading of sub-section (13) of Section 144C of the Act, the AO is not accorded any discretion in the framing of an order of assessment once directions have come to be framed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be mandatory in character. In our considered opinion, this interpretation is in accord with the intent behind insertion of that provision and the bare text and spirit of that section. Thus, we accord our approval to the interpretation as set out in the aforenoted decisions of the Bombay High Court. 19. Further, the procedure of assessment as provided under Section 144C does not envisage or contemplate the interdiction or involvement of the TPO once a directive has been framed by the DRP. The role of the TPO comes to an end once an order as contemplated under Section 92 CA(4) of the Act has come to be framed and remitted to the AO. There was thus no occasion for the TPO having resumed proceedings post the passing of the direction by the DRP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
