Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (9) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e order under Section 143 (3) for the AY 2011-12 should have been passed by 31.3.2015. Hence, the date on which the order u/s 92CA (3) of the Act was to be passed was on or before 28.1.2015. Hence, the order Section 92CA (3) having been passed on 30.1.2015, the Tribunal accepted the contention put forth by the assessee and passed the impugned order. As further forthcoming that before the Tribunal the contention of the revenue was that the delay was a curable defect and that although the order was passed on 28.1.2015, the same was dated as 30.1.2015. While noticing the said contention the Tribunal by relying on the judgment in the case of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Private Ltd. [ 2022 (4) TMI 808 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] and also by noticing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ICE C.M. POONACHA) The present appeals are filed by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] challenging the order dated 30.03.2022 passed in IT(TP)A No. 699/BANG/2016 and in IT(TP)A No. 548/Bang/2016, respectively by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore [Tribunal] . 2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present appeal are that the respondent/assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of solar cells, photovoltaic modules and systems. The assessee filed its return of income for the financial year 2010-11 relevant to Assessment Year [AY] 2011-12 on 24.9.2011. 3. The Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] passed an order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act on 30.01.2015, proposing an a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ection 143 (3) of the Act for the AY 2010-11 in respect of the assessee should have been passed on or before 31.3.2015. Calculating 60 days prior to the said date, the Tribunal held that the order under Section 92CA (3) ought to have been passed on or before 28.1.2015. However, the order having been passed on 30.1.2015 and the same having been passed beyond the time prescribed, allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Being aggrieved, the present appeals are filed. 6. Sri E.I Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue contends that the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous and perverse and the said appeals are required to be admitted to consider the substantial questions of law framed in the memorandum of ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ave been passed by 31.3.2015. Hence, the date on which the order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act was to be passed was on or before 28.1.2015. Hence, the order Section 92CA (3) of the Act having been passed on 30.1.2015, the Tribunal accepted the contention put forth by the assessee and passed the impugned order. 10. It is further forthcoming that before the Tribunal the contention of the revenue was that the delay was a curable defect and that although the order was passed on 28.1.2015, the same was dated as 30.1.2015. While noticing the said contention the Tribunal by relying on the judgment of the Madras High in the case of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Private Ltd., and also by noticing that the contention put forth by the revenue that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an order is passed in time, the procedures under 144C and 92CA (4) are to be followed. When the determination is not in time, it cannot be relied upon by the assessing officer while concluding the assessment proceedings. 39. Upon consideration of the judgments and the scheme of the Act, we are of the opinion that the word may used therein has to be construed as shall and the time period fixed therein has to be scrupulously followed. The word may is used there to imply that an order can be passed any day before 60 days and it is not that the order must be made on the day before the 60th day. The impact of the proviso to the sub-section clarifies the mandatory nature of the time schedule. The word may cannot be interpreted to say that the le .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates