TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Section 144C of the Act provides a mechanism for resolving disputes through the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The petitioner, a 100% export-oriented unit, claimed deductions under Section 10B, which were initially accepted for prior assessment years. However, for the assessment year 2009-10, the Transfer Pricing Officer made adjustments, leading to a draft assessment order issued by the assessing officer. The petitioner filed objections with the DRP, which issued directions on 09.12.2013. The assessing officer was required to pass the final assessment order by 31.01.2014, but did so only on 27.03.2014, prompting the petitioner to seek judicial intervention.
The petitioner argued that the assessment order was non-est due to its issuance beyond the statutory time frame, relying on precedents that emphasize adherence to procedural timelines in tax assessments. The petitioner contended that Section 144C is a non-obstante provision, mandating strict compliance with its procedural requirements, and any deviation renders the order void. The petitioner further argued that the absence of evidence showing when the DRP's directions were received by the assessing officer supports their claim of the order being ultra vires.
The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy through an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. They contended that the assessment order was a procedural formality in line with the DRP's directions and not a quasi-judicial order. They suggested that Section 144C is procedural, similar to the repealed Section 144B, and non-compliance does not invalidate the assessment.
The Court examined whether Section 144C is procedural or substantive. It noted that Section 144C, introduced to provide a fast-track dispute resolution mechanism, prescribes specific time limits for each step in the assessment process. The Court emphasized that these time limits are crucial to the provision's purpose and object, and any dilution would defeat its intent. The exclusion of Section 153, which provides longer time limits, from Section 144C's framework underscores the legislature's intention for strict adherence to the prescribed timelines.
The Court found that the respondents failed to provide evidence of the date the DRP's directions were received, and no reasons were given for the delay in issuing the assessment order. The Court held that Section 144C is not merely procedural but a substantive provision requiring strict compliance with its time limits. The Court referenced precedents that support the view that non-compliance with such statutory provisions results in illegality, not mere procedural irregularity.
Significant holdings include the Court's determination that Section 144C mandates strict adherence to its procedural timelines, as it is a substantive provision. The failure to comply with these timelines renders the assessment order void. The Court concluded that the impugned assessment order was issued beyond the prescribed period, making it unsustainable. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the assessment order was set aside.
TaxTMI 
