Procedural defect curable: DRP's directions to TPO, not AO. Order set aside, case remitted. Assessee's appeal allowed.

The Tribunal found that the procedural defect in the case, where the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) issued directions to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) instead of the Assessing Officer, was curable. The DRP's order was set aside, and the case was remitted back for proper directions in accordance with the law. The appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Time limitation under Sec.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for passing assessment order.
2. Applicability of Sec.153(2A) in passing order pursuant to Tribunal directions.
3. Authority of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to issue directions to Assessing Officer.
4. Interpretation of the powers of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) compared to Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned the time limitation under Sec.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for passing the assessment order. The Assessing Officer was required to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which directions from the DRP were received. The contention was raised that the order passed by the Assessing Officer on 26.02.2015 was time-barred as it exceeded the limitation period mentioned in the Act.

2. The issue of the applicability of Sec.153(2A) in passing orders pursuant to Tribunal directions was raised. The Departmental Representative argued that there was no time limit for passing an order following the Tribunal's direction, citing Sec.153(2A) of the Act. However, the Appellate Tribunal noted that Sec.153(2A) did not override the specific time limits set out in Sec.144C(13) of the Act.

3. The authority of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to issue directions to the Assessing Officer was a crucial point of contention. The Tribunal clarified that the DRP had the power to give directions only to the Assessing Officer, as per the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Sec.144C. It was highlighted that the directions issued by the DRP were to guide the Assessing Officer in completing the assessment.

4. The interpretation of the powers of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) compared to the Assessing Officer was also discussed. The Tribunal emphasized that the TPO did not possess the same powers as the Assessing Officer, as clarified by the Explanation to Sec.92CA. While the TPO had specific functions related to determining Arms Length Price, the authority to make the final assessment remained with the Assessing Officer.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the procedural defect in the case, where the DRP had issued directions to the TPO instead of the Assessing Officer, was curable. The order of the DRP was set aside, and the case was remitted back for proper directions in accordance with the law. The appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

---