9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expiry of one month from the end of the month in which the directions of DRP was received in terms of Section 144C(13) of the Act, the said order was set aside for being barred by limitation. Similar view was also taken in the case of Dentsply India (P.) Ltd. v/s. ITO [ 2019 (5) TMI 1505 - ITAT DELHI ] Respectfully following the decisions supra and also considering the provisions of Section 144C(5) and (13) of the Act, we find that the directions of the ld. DRP u/s 144C(5) were issued on 25/09/2018 and the same were communicated to the Assessing Officer on 03/10/2018 and the time limit to give effect to the order of the ld. DRP was expiring on 30/11/2018 but since the AO failed to adhere to the said provisions and gave effect to the order of the ld. DRP on 06/12/2018, the impugned assessment orders u/s 144C(13)/147/143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2010-11 and similarly for Assessment Year 2011-12, are barred by limitation and, therefore, are quashed. Thus, the additional ground raised by the assessee are allowed. - DR. MANISH BORAD, HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri Rake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 or section 153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. 6. The aforesaid Directions issued by the DRP u/s. 144C(5) of the Act, were received by the Assessing Officer on 03 October 2018. This fact is clearly evident from the letter dated 11 April 2019 received by the Appellant from the Assessing Officer, which is on record. 7. Considering the fact that the Directions of the DRP was received by the Assessing Officer on 03 October 2018, the time limit prescribed u/s. 144C(13) to pass the Final Assessment Order ended on 30 November 2018 as explained hereunder: a. Direction of the DRP received by the AO on 03 October 2018 i.e. in the month of October 2018, which ends on 31 October 2018; b. One month from the end of the month in which the directions are received therefore ended on 30 November 2018. 8. However, in the instant case, the Assessing Officer has passed the Final Assessment Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt out that the Assessing Officer in his impugned Order dated 06 December 2018 makes no reference to the rectification Order passed by the DRP on 28 November 2018 and acknowledges the fact that Directions of the DRP u/s. 144C(5) of the Act are dated 25 September 2018 {refer last paragraph on page No. 2 of the impugned Final Assessment Order). 17. Accordingly, it is submitted and it will be appreciated that the time limit to pass the Final Assessment Order can only be considered from the 03 October 2018 which is the date on which the DRP Directions u/s. 144C(5) were received by the Assessing Officer. Prayer: In view of the foregoing, the impugned Final Assessment Order(s) dated 06 December 2018 passed by the Assessing Officer being barred by limitation should be struck down. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment order passed u/s 144C(13)/147/143(3) of the Act dt. 06/12/2018, is barred by limitation as the last date of framing the assessment was 30/11/2018 but the assessment order has been framed on 06/12/2018, for both the Assessment Years in question and on this ground of limitation, both the assessment orders, deserve to be quashed. On th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. 6. Now, the contention of the ld. D/R is that after the directions of the ld. DRP, firstly the ld. TPO had to give effect to the adjustments made by him in the original TPO order and thereafter when the necessary effect is given, the same has to be communicated to the Assessing Officer which ld. D/R has claimed that the ld. Assessing Officer received the said communication in the month of November, 2018, and therefore, the time limit for the Assessing Officer was expiring on 31/12/2018 and, therefore, there is no delay in giving effect to the ld. DRP directions. 6.1. We, however, do not agree with this contention of the ld. D/R because in our humble understanding, sub-section 13 of Section 144C of the Act only refers to the Assessing Officer and there is no mention about the TPO. Sub-section 13 of Section 144C of the Act prescribes the time limit of one month from the end of the month in which the directions of the ld. DRP issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act is received. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the order of the ld. DRP was received by the Assessing Officer on 03/10/2018 and the last date for giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
