TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s abroad and the value of the same exceeded Rs. 15 crores. Hence, the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the Arms Length Price with reference to all transactions reported in Form No.3 CEB. The Transfer Pricing Officer issued a show cause notice dated 14.12.2015. The petitioner Company filed a detailed reply on 18.12.2015. The Transfer Pricing Officer, by order dated 27.01.2016, calculated the Arms Length Price as per the provisions of Section 92C (1) & (2) of the said Act and ordered adjustment in the income of the assessee amounting to Rs. 3,67,55,978 towards excess interest paid on Compulsory Convertible Debentures. (ii) Adopting the said order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the 2nd respondent issued a draft assessment order under Section 144C (1) of the said Act on 29.03.2016. The draft assessment oder was served on the authorised representative of the petitioner on 29.03.2016. (iii) As per the provisions contained under Section 144C of the said Act, the petitioner has to file their objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, namely, the 1st respondent herein, if the petitioner is intended to object to the draft assessment order. Acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. However, the petitioner served a letter on the 2nd respondent dated 27.04.2016, as if the objections were filed before the 1st respondent on the said day itself. The petitioner had thus, misled the 2nd respondent with regard to the date of filing of the objections before the 1st respondent. In fact, the petitioner has claimed before the 1st respondent that the draft assessment order was served only on 31.03.2016, which is a false statement. Since the petitioner company has intimated the filing of objections through letter dated 27.04.2016 and preempted the 2nd respondent from completing the assessment, the final assessment order was not passed. However, after the disposal of the objections by the 1st respondent, the final assessment order was passed by the 2nd respondent on 18.11.2016 by raising a demand of Rs. 1,76,32,760/- on the petitioner Company. 4. Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as follows: The draft assessment order was made on 29.03.2016 and served on the petitioner on the same day. The objections were filed before the 1st respondent on 29.04.2016, admittedly, with one day delay. Therefore, the 2nd respondent ought to have passed the final....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., there is no delay in passing the final order. The petitioner can file appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the final order of assessment. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The petitioner is an assessee before the 2nd respondent. In respect of the assessment year 2012-13, the petitioner's case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the Arms Length Price with reference to all transactions reported in Form No.3 CEB, since the petitioner had entered into International transactions with its Associate Enterprises. The Transfer Pricing Officer, after issuing notice to the petitioner and considering their reply, passed an order under Section 92CA(3) of the said Act on 27.01.2016. Consequently, by adopting the said Transfer Pricing Officer's order, the 2nd respondent issued a draft assessment order under Section 92CA(4) of the said Act on 29.03.2016 and forwarded the same as required under Section 144C of the said Act to the assessee on the very same day. The core contention of the dispute between the parties arises only from this stage. 8. On receipt of the draft assessment order, the petitioner filed their objections before the Dispute Resolution Pane....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the petitioner has deliberately made the 2nd respondent to believe as if the appeal/objection has either been already filed or filed on 27.04.2016 before the 1st respondent. For better appreciation, the above letter dated 27.04.2016 is extracted hereunder: To 27.04.2016 Income Tax Officer Corporate Ward 2(4) Chennai-24 Madam, Sub: Appeal for IT Assessment order for Assessment year 2012-13 Ref: Your order dated 29-03-2016 PAN-AACC11592A (Inno estates Private Limited) Please find attached the entire set of documents filed before the Dispute Redressal Panel. We request you to keep the demand in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. Thanking you, For Inno Estates Private Limited Director. 11. In the above said letter, apart from making the 2nd respondent to believe as though the objection was filed in time, the petitioner has also requested him to keep the demand in abeyance till the disposal of such objection. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is statutorily prevented from passing the final assessment order, as contemplated under Section 144C(3) of the said Act. A perusal of Section 144C(2) of the said Act would show that the assessee, on receipt of the draf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, that it shall not set aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under sub-section (5) for further enquiry and passing of the assessment order (Explanation For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the power of the Dispute Resolution Panel to enhance the variation shall include and shall be deemed always to have included the power to consider any matter arising out of the assessment proceedings relating to the draft order, notwithstanding that such matter was raised or not by the eligible assessee) 13. A perusal of the above said provision of law would undoubtedly make it clear that the Dispute Resolution Panel may confirm, reduce or enhance the variation proposed in the draft order. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent rejected the objection filed by the petitioner on 10.11.2016, of course, on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Still it is an order rejecting the objections. Once, the 1st respondent has chosen to reject the objections either on merits or on the ground of delay, it goes without saying that resultant position of such rejection is nothing but confirmation of the draft order passed by the 2nd respondent, as contemplated und....