TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved on appellant without determination of tax payable by the appellant. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that corrigendum order dated 05.05.2014 passed by AO has removed the deficiency in the draft assessment order without realizing that the corrigendum order was passed beyond limitation period and such order cannot validate a time barred assessment. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding the draft assessment order dated 31.03.2014 as valid assessment when Notice of Demand was served on appellant on 05.05.2014 along with corrigendum order dated 05.05.2014 which was passed beyond limitation period. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the leaned CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of corrigendum order in spite of the fact that the same did not contain mention of the provision of Income Tax Act under which it was passed. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO act of denying the appellant deduction of RS 46,23,444/- u/s. 10A of the Income Tax Act." 2. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee has challenged the validity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged that no valid assessment order has been within the stipulated time limit of 31.03.2014, and therefore, the assessment proceedings are barred by limitation. Since, it is only a draft assessment order and no final order has been passed on or before 31.03.2014, therefore, the said assessment is barred by limitation and is bad in law. 5. Ld. CIT(A) has dealt and decided the issue in the following manner: "4.2 The facts of the case is that the transfer pricing adjustment was done by the assessing officer without reference to the TPO. Therefore, there is no order passed by TPO u/s. 92CA(3) of I.T. Act & therefore, Section 144C is not applicable and providing draft assessment order to the assessee was not required as has been done by the assessing officer. Having held so, only issue which remains to be answered is whether the said order dated 31.03.2014 can be said as assessment order. The said order has been passed & served within lime allowed under the provision of Section 153 of I.T. Act. To determine this issue, it would be proper to go through contents of the impugned assessment order. The assessing officer in last para 5 of the assessment order has computed total income & d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the assessment order. The appellant has not been put in disadvantaged position for the late service of notice of demand u/s 156, as the appellant has been given time to file appeal after the date of service of notice demand as per provisions of section 246A of the act. 4.4 1 have examined judicial pronouncement relied by Ld. AR. The case of PK Chandra v/s stale of Kerala cited Supra Hon'ble S.C has only given general guidelines on the law of limitation. In the case of CIT v/s. Balakrishan Malhotra cited supra Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that determination of tax is essential to assess total income. Similarly in the case of Kalvan Kumar A v/s CIT Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the unless tax that the computation sheets for the tax liability are signed by the IT officer, the process of assessment is not complete. In present case the assessment order including determination of tax liability was completed before time barring date. Therefore, the above two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court does not help the appellant In the case of Vijay Television Pvt. Ltd. Hon'ble Madras High court has held that in case of reference made to the TPO or determination of Arm's Length Price,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vs Aditya Narain Verma (HUF) (2017) 88 taxmann.com 840." 8. On the other hand, ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order on 31.03.2014 which was within the limitation period and the corrigendum issued thereafter clearly shows that it was a final assessment order only. He strongly referred to the observation and finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) as reproduced above. 9. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned order as well as material placed on record, we find that the assessee company had filed its return of income on 29.09.2011 through electronic mode and the said return was processed u/s.143(1). Thereafter, assessee's case was selected for scrutiny u/s.143(2) and thereafter assessment proceedings had commenced. In form 3CEB, the assessee had disclosed international transaction on provision of Software Development Services with AE at Rs. 4,55,56,928/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has noted the business of the assessee as given in the transfer pricing report and he has made transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 46,59,671/- by computing the Arm's Length Price of internatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order passed by the Assessing Officer, where he had clearly mentioned that, order passed u/s.143(3)/144C, is a draft assessment order and even his forwarding letter further clarifies the same and the intention of the Assessing Officer. It is an undisputed fact that limitation for passing the assessment order, if it was not draft assessment order was 31.03.2014. However, as noted above, the Assessing Officer has passed the draft assessment order and has forwarded the same to the assessee stating that if the assessee does not agree with the transfer pricing adjustment, then he can file objection before the DRP within 30 days of the said order. It is only when assessee intimates to the Assessing Officer that he has accepted the variation order he has no objection within 30 days then Assessing Officer has to complete the assessment order on the basis of draft assessment order. Here in this case, there was international transaction and deviation arises out of transfer pricing adjustments though without referring to TPO in terms of Section 92CA, the Assessing Officer was obliged to follow the procedure u/s.144C, which he has not. 13. The Tribunal in the case of Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. ....