TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1505
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s. 92CA of the IT Act, 1961 for determining the arms length price of the internal transactions. The TPO vide order dated 29.07.2009 passed u/s. 92CA of the IT Act, 1961 made an adjustment of Rs. 2,28,67,960/- to the arms length price of the internal transactions assessee company. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed draft assessment order on 27.11.2009 determining the total income at Nil after adjustment of the unabsorbed depreciation and set off of business loss from the addition proposed by the TPO. The assessee approached the DRP and the DRP vide order dated 03.06.2010 gave directions u/s. 144 C of the Act wherein, the addition suggested by the TPO was upheld. Accordingly the Assessing Officer passed the final order on 27.08.2010. 4. Aggrieved with order of the TPO/AO/DRP, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:- That the appellant denies its liability to be assessed at gross total income of Rs. 3,99,95,452/- and accordingly denies its liability to pay tax, interest, cess and surcharge demanded thereon. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. ITO, Ward- 10(1) has erred in law and on facts i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have the same pricing basis during the financial year 2003-04 as well. (f) Ld. TPO has erred in law and on facts by not considering the authenticated dala of the comparable companies relevant to the financial year 2005-06 obtained from the registrar of companies web site which was provided by the appellant to the DRP also along with the objections raised before it and Ld. AO also erred as the same were also not considered by the assessing officer before passing the final order. 6. That the draft order dated 27-11-2009 passed by the ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi is also illegal and is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 7. That the order passed by Hon'ble Dispute Resolution System u/s 144C dated 03-06- 2010 is also illegal and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds and the directions issued therein are also contrary to law and facts.. 8. That the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 27-08-2010 by ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi is illegal, contrary to law and facts, barred by limitation and the same is no sustainable on various legal and factual grounds and the additions made therein arc also bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 4 Date of receipt of directions by the A.O. June, 03, 2010 Annexure 5 Date of final assessment year June 17, 2010 Annexure 6 Date of final assessment order August 27 , 2010 Annexure 7 10. He submitted that provisions of section 144C(13) of the IT Act 1961 provides that the Assessing Officer is required to pass the final assessment order within 30 days from the end of the month in which the directions passed by the DRP is received by the A.O. However, in the present case, the order has been passed after the end of one month from the date of receipt of directions of the Ld. DRP by the A.O., he submitted that the A.O. received the directions of the Ld. DRP on June 17, 2010. The last date permissible under the Act to pass the final assessment order was accordingly July 30, 2010. However, the final assessment order was passed on August 27, 2010, which is beyond the limitation period stipulated under the Act. Thus, the order of the AO is voidab- initio, and liable to be quashed as the final assessment order is time barred. 11. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and the DR extensively. It was seen from the order sheet entries that the DR was directed a numbe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19 The Assessing officer intimated that the relevant assessment folder is not readily available in the office . The AO concerned was requested to hand over the file to the present assessing officer. Simultaneously record keeping agency was also requested, to deliver the same iii. F.No. Addl.CIT/Special Range-03/2018-19/765 dated 21.02.2019 The Assessing officer intimated that the relevant assessment folder could not be delivered either by the then assessing officer or by the record keeping agency . Record could not be traced with the record keeping agency. Also letter has been written to the concerned charge from where the case had been transferred u/s 127 of the I.T.Act. The copies of all the above mentioned letters have been enclosed herewith." 13. We have perused the record and heard both the sides on this issue. It is an admitted fact that the DRP passed the directions u/s. 144 C of the IT Act on 03.06.2010 which is not in dispute. We find from annexure-6 filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee duly certified by Shri Rakesh Kumar, Addl. CIT shows that the directions issued by the DRP on 03.06.2010 was received by the Assessing Officer on 17.06.2010. We find the final....