TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessment proceedings under section 144C barred by limitation after AO failed to complete within mandatory one-month timeline</h1> <h3>M/s. Conferencecall-Services India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1 (2), Chennai.</h3> M/s. Conferencecall-Services India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1 (2), Chennai. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the final assessment order due to the alleged expiration of the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Final Assessment Order:The primary issue in this case is the validity of the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 21.11.2017, which the assessee claims is barred by limitation as per Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The relevant facts and legal provisions are as follows:Facts:- The assessee, engaged in providing audio, video, and web conferencing services, filed its return of income (RoI) for AY 2013-14 on 31.03.2014, admitting a total income of Rs. 37,23,48,860/-.- The AO noted that the assessee had entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprise (AE) amounting to Rs. 1,33,64,73,845/-.- The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made a downward adjustment of Rs. 7,53,90,367/- on 24.10.2016.- The AO issued a draft assessment order on 26.12.2016, computing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 48,75,73,688/-.- The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which were rejected on 08.09.2017, confirming the TPO's adjustment.- The AO passed the final assessment order on 21.11.2017.Contentions:- The assessee argued that the AO failed to pass the final assessment order within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's directions were received, making the order time-barred and invalid as per Section 144C(13).- The AO received the DRP's directions on 18.09.2017, and thus, the final assessment order should have been passed by 31.10.2017.Legal Provisions and Analysis:- Section 144C(13) mandates that the AO must complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's directions are received.- The AO received the DRP's directions on 18.09.2017, making 31.10.2017 the last date for passing the final assessment order.- The final assessment order was passed on 21.11.2017, which is beyond the prescribed time limit, rendering it invalid and without jurisdiction.Judicial Precedents:- The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Central Processing Centre & Ors emphasized the strict adherence to the time limits prescribed under Section 144C to maintain the integrity of the alternate dispute resolution mechanism provided by the DRP.- The Hon'ble Madras High Court in M/s. Taeyang Metal India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT/ITO/DRP quashed an assessment order passed beyond the time limit specified in Section 144C(13), reinforcing the mandatory nature of the time limit.Conclusion:In light of the statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and the facts of the case, the final assessment order dated 21.11.2017 was held to be barred by limitation and thus invalid. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the impugned assessment order was quashed.Outcome:The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the final assessment order dated 21.11.2017 was quashed as being barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. The other grounds on merits were not adjudicated as they were rendered academic.Order Pronounced:The order was pronounced on the 10th day of May, 2024, in Chennai.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
