Transfer pricing limitation under section 144C and section 153 treated together, leading to quashing of time-barred assessments.

Validity of final assessment orders under transfer pricing provisions turns on whether the limitation in the specialised assessment regime is to be read with the general limitation statute. The article explains that the specialised provision governing final assessment timelines must be interpreted together with the general limitation provision when both address the same subject; applying that mutual construction, final assessment orders passed beyond the combined limitation period are jurisdictionally invalid. Consequently, final assessments for the specified years concluded after the combined limitation period were quashed as time-barred and without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the final assessment orders passed under section 144C(13) read with section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are time-barred and, if so, whether such orders are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The issue requires examination of the statutory timelines in section 144C and section 153 and their interplay where DRP proceedings are invoked. Section 144C provides a multi-stage mechanism with specified time windows for draft order, filing objections, DRP directions and passing of the final order; section 153 prescribes outer time limits for completion of assessment proceedings, including on remand. The reasoning in the cited authority adopts a construction that the timelines under section 153 continue to apply when proceedings are remitted (or continued) under section 144C, making the provisions mutually inclusive rather than mutually exclusive. Application of those principles to the undisputed date chart shows that the final orders were passed after the outer limitation dates calculated with reference to section 144C read with section 153.

Conclusion: The final assessment orders passed beyond the period of limitation under section 144C(13) read with section 153 are without jurisdiction and are quashed; outcome is in favour of the assessee.

---