TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer consequent to the direction of the DRP is barred by limitation. Referring to the provisions of section 144C(13), the learned Counsel submitted that on receiving the direction of the DRP, the Assessing Officer is expected to pass the order in conformity with the direction of the DRP within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. In this case, the direction of the DRP is dated 29.11.2013. However, the assessment order was passed on 28.03.2014. The learned Counsel submitted that the assessee received copy of the direction of the DRP on 05.12.2013. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot stand in the eyes of law. On a query from the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. Section 153 of the Income-tax Act provides for limitation for passing the assessment order. In fact, 3rd proviso to section 153(1) provides for three years from the end of the assessment year in which its income was first assessable for passing the assessment order, wherever the matter was referred to TPO. We also find that section 92CA(3A) enables the TPO to pass an order before 60 days prior to the time limit provided for passing the assessment order in 153 or 153B, as the case may be. Therefore, wherever the issue of adjustment of transfer pricing arises for consideration, the TPO is expected to pass his order before 60 days prior to the period of limitation referred in 153 or 153B, as the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....period of limitations are provided in different provisions as stated above, wherever the transfer pricing adjustment are involved the question arises for consideration is which provisions of the Income-tax Act would be applicable when the DRP directed the Assessing Officer to make transfer pricing adjustment. It is well settled principles of rule of interpretation that whenever conflicting provisions are provided in the enactment all the provisions of the Act shall be read harmoniously so as to give effect to all the provisions of the Act. If for any reasons any of the provisions could not be reconciled, the latter provision will prevail over the former. By keeping this Rule of interpretation as approved by the Privy Council and the Apex Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the Assessing Officer claims that the direction of DRP was initially sent to the ACIT, Circle 1(1), Kochi and the same was redirected. From the assessment order it appears that the assessment order was passed by the ACIT, Circle 1(1), Trivandrum. From the letter of the Assessing Officer dated 09.07.2014, it appears that the direction of DRP was mis-sent to ACIT, Kochi. No material is available on record to suggest that the direction of the DRP was sent to ACIT, Circle 1(1), Kochi, other than the letter of the Assessing Officer. Moreover, it is also not known when actually the ACIT, Circle 1(1), Kochi, received the direction of the DRP, and when it was redirected. The letter of the Assessing Officer dated 09.07.2014 is reproduced hereunder....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Whenever a letter or other communication is received by post, it is the practice of the Government department to make entry in the register for inward tapal as per the procedure / instructions of Government of India. It is not known how the Assessing Officer could claim that the date of receipt of the direction of DRP is not recorded in his office. It is for the Officers of the Income-tax Department to set right their house in order by maintaining proper records for inward and outward tapals. The Assessing Officer cannot take advantage of his negligence in not maintaining the register for inward tapal. Moreover, when the Income-tax Act provides for one month period for passing the assessment order after receipt of the direction of the DRP, ....