Tribunal deems assessment order time-barred, void ab-initio, appeal allowed. Upward TP adjustment, TDS non-deduction, Chapter VIA deduction issues not addressed.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, deeming the assessment order time-barred and void ab-initio. Consequently, other issues raised, including upward TP adjustment, addition for non-deduction of TDS, deduction under Chapter VIA, credit for taxes paid, interest charged under Section 234C, interest recovery under Section 244A, and penalty proceedings initiation, were not addressed. The appellant's appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced on 09-09-2022.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the assessment order being time-barred.
2. Upward TP adjustment under Section 92C(2).
3. Addition under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS.
4. Deduction under Chapter VIA for disallowed income.
5. Credit for taxes paid.
6. Interest charged under Section 234C.
7. Interest recovery under Section 244A.
8. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Order Being Time-Barred:
The appellant argued that the assessment order dated 15/03/2019 was time-barred under Section 153(3) of the IT Act, which mandates that an order of fresh assessment must be passed within nine months from the end of the financial year in which the ITAT's order under Section 254 is received. The ITAT's order was received by the Principal Commissioner on 06/06/2017, thus the deadline was 31/12/2018. The Revenue countered that Section 144C, which contains the words "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153," overrides Section 153, implying the timeline for passing the order was not governed by Section 153. The Tribunal, referencing the statutory provisions and the case of CIT v Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd., concluded that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive. Therefore, the assessment order dated 15/03/2019 was deemed time-barred and void ab-initio.

2. Upward TP Adjustment Under Section 92C(2):
The appellant contended that the AO/TPO erred in not granting the benefit of five percent under the second proviso to Section 92C(2) and confirmed an upward TP adjustment of INR 16,79,093. However, this issue was not adjudicated as the appeal was allowed on jurisdictional grounds.

3. Addition Under Section 40(a)(i) for Non-Deduction of TDS:
The appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 18,18,96,302 under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195. This issue was also not adjudicated due to the jurisdictional decision.

4. Deduction Under Chapter VIA for Disallowed Income:
The appellant argued for further deduction under Chapter VIA from the income added by disallowance under Section 40(a)(i). This issue remained unaddressed as the appeal was allowed on jurisdictional grounds.

5. Credit for Taxes Paid:
The appellant claimed an error in the credit for taxes paid, arguing the correct amount was Rs. 20,21,14,033 instead of Rs. 19,97,53,105. This issue was not examined due to the jurisdictional ruling.

6. Interest Charged Under Section 234C:
The appellant contested the excess interest charged under Section 234C amounting to Rs. 1,08,603. This matter was not evaluated as the appeal was allowed on the basis of jurisdiction.

7. Interest Recovery Under Section 244A:
The appellant disputed the recovery of interest under Section 244A amounting to Rs. 1,79,390. This issue was not decided due to the jurisdictional decision.

8. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c):
The appellant argued against the mechanical initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for each addition made in the assessment order. This issue was not addressed as the appeal was allowed on jurisdictional grounds.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground of jurisdiction, declaring the assessment order dated 15/03/2019 time-barred and void ab-initio. Consequently, the other grounds of appeal were not adjudicated. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 09-09-2022.

---