2025 (2) TMI 499 - HC - Income Tax

Section 144C(13) time limit for assessment after DRP directions is mandatory, not directory

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai Versus Sterling Oil Resources Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai Versus Sterling Oil Resources Ltd. - 2025:BHC - OS:2155 - DB ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question considered in this judgment was whether the time limit provided under Section 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for completing the assessment as per the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), is mandatory or directory. The court examined whether the assessment order passed beyond this time limit is barred by limitation.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsSection 144C of the Income Tax Act provides a mechanism for resolving disputes involving international transactions by allowing eligible assessees to object to draft assessment orders before the DRP. The DRP issues directions to the Assessing Officer (AO), who must complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's directions are received. The court analyzed Section 144C's scheme, including subsections (4), (12), and (13), to determine the mandatory nature of the time limit.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe court held that the time limit under Section 144C (13) is mandatory. It emphasized that the provision's language, using the word 'shall,' indicates a legislative intent for the time limit to be imperative. The court reasoned that the provision aims to ensure expeditious resolution of disputes, aligning with the objective of Section 144C to facilitate speedy disposal of cases involving multinational companies.Key Evidence and FindingsThe court noted that the directions from the DRP were received by the AO on December 23, 2014, and the final assessment order was passed on February 27, 2015. This was beyond the one-month period ending January 31, 2015, making the assessment order time-barred.Application of Law to FactsThe court applied the statutory time limit strictly, concluding that the assessment order dated February 27, 2015, was invalid as it was passed beyond the period prescribed by Section 144C (13). The court rejected the argument that the time limit was merely directory, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines in fiscal statutes.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe appellant-revenue argued that the time limit was directory, citing precedents suggesting flexibility in procedural timelines. However, the court dismissed these arguments, stating that equitable considerations are not applicable in construing limitation provisions in fiscal statutes. The court relied on precedents that emphasized strict adherence to statutory time limits.ConclusionsThe court concluded that the assessment order was barred by limitation due to non-compliance with the mandatory time limit under Section 144C (13). The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, and the court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the assessment order was invalid.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe court held that Section 144C (13) is mandatory, not directory, emphasizing the legislative intent for expeditious resolution of disputes. The court stated: 'The phrase 'shall ... complete the assessment ... within one month ... received' indicates the imperative nature of the time limit.' The court reiterated that statutory deadlines in fiscal statutes must be strictly adhered to, rejecting arguments for flexibility based on procedural considerations.The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal and ruling in favor of the respondent-assessee. The judgment does not preclude the revenue from initiating fresh proceedings if permissible under the law.