9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s jurisdictional issue of limitation is decided against the Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order by Transfer Pricing Officer u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 28.01.2022. Hence, the last date for completion of assessment proceedings have become time barred on 31.03.2022 i.e., before the date of completion of assessment proceedings, which was completed on 30.09.2022. The AO held that due to completion of assessment proceedings for assessment year 2019-20 as extended by CBDT Notification was 30.09.2021, as the assessee's case have been referred to transfer pricing proceedings u/s. 92CA of the Act, a further period of 12 months has been added to calculate the time period. 3.1 The CIT(A) after going through the above facts and submissions held the assessment as barred by limitation by noting in para 4.4 as under:- 4.4 I have considered the assessment order and submission of the appellant, the assessment order under section 143(3) for AY 2019-20 is deemed time-barred as the last date for completing assessment proceedings i.e. 31-03-2022, had expired, and no valid extension beyond this date was provided either through CBDT notifications or the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Additionally, the Transfer Pricing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lank of argument challenging validity of impugned order is that the Assessing Officer had made a reference to the TPO, but the reference was returned by the TPO stating it to be time barred. The CIT in the impugned order has observed that there was no reference by the Assessing Officer. Hence, jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act has been exercised on wrong appreciation of facts. Before we proceed further it would be relevant to refer to some of the dates: Date Events 01/03/2021 Letter from A.O to CIT(IT),Mumbai-3 requesting for approval for referring the case to the TPO. 09/03/2021 Approval received from the CIT for referring the case to TPO 20/09/2021 A.O makes reference to the TPO via ITBA Portal. 24/09/2021 TPO returned the reference to A.O stating it to be invalid/time barred, hence, cannot be acted upon. Indeed, reference was made by the Assessing Officer to TPO, and the said reference was returned on the ground that it was not valid. The provisions of section 92CA(1) of the Act mandates that the Assessing Officer has to make a reference to the TPO with the previous approval of the PCIT/CIT for computation of the arm's length price in relation to the internat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... difficulties faced by the TP Officers in completing TP proceedings and passing TP orders by 31st July 2021. It is pertinent to reiterate that TOLA does not give the authority to extend the TP time barring date of 31.07,2021 for AY, 2018-19. The said time barring date can be extended only by means of an ordinance or a legislative amendment which is beyond the purview of the Board." [Emphasized by us] A perusal of the aforesaid Office Memo makes it clear that there is no extension of time for passing the TP order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act by TOLA. 10. A close examination of sequence of events tabulated above would show that the Assessing Officer had received the approval from the office of CIT on 09/03/2021 i.e. well before the last date for passing of the TP order i.e. 31/07/2021. The Assessing Officer went in slumber and held on to himself the approval from CIT for more than six months. In proceedings under the Act, time is the essence. Thereafter, on 20/09/2021 made reference to TPO, by that time the period to pass the order by the TPO u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act had already elapsed. As is evident from Office Memo the last date for passing the order for TPO was 31/07/2021. The ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
