TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot reject TP documentation prepared by Appellant and still modified economic analysis undertaken by Appellant. 8. Ld. Transfer pricing officer erred in comparing Appellant with HLL Life care limited. 9. Impugned order is bad in law as demand notice is issued along with draft assessment order." 3. The Ld.Counsel submitted that issue raised in Ground No.9 goes to the root of the assessment proceedings, and therefore deserves to be admitted. He placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. vs CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. reported in 187 ITR 688. 4. The Ld.CIT.DR though vehemently objected for the admission, could not controvert the nature of the issue raised by assessee in Ground No.9. 5. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 6. We note that this issue raised in Ground No. 9 arises out of the records placed before us. This issue being legal in nature, goes to the root cause of the assessment proceedings. We also note that there is no estoppel that an issue arising out of the records could not be alleged by assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Decision of Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in case of Price water house Coopers (P) Ltd. vs DCIT reported in (2020) 117 Taxmann.com 276 11. We have heard both sides in light of records placed before us. As per section 144C of the Act, it is mandatory for the Ld.AO to pass Draft Assessment Order in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. Various decisions relied by the Ld.AR reproduced hereinabove highlight that, it is mandatory for Ld.AO to follow the procedures laid down under section 144C of the Act in an assessment that involves assessment of international transaction. Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Vijay Television (supra) observed as under: "Admittedly, the case of the petitioner company was taken up for scrutiny by the second respondent relating to the assessment years 2009-2010 inasmuch as the petitioner company had entered into international transactions during such assessment year. Ultimately, the case was referred to the TPO for determination of the ALP of all such international transactions reported in Form 3CEB filed by the petitioner company. The TPO, after conducting enquiry, has ultimately passed an order on 30.01.2013. Thereafter, according to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s - (i) the Assessing Officer has intimated the Central Government or the prescribed authority the contravention of the provisions of clause (21) or clause (22B) or clause (23A) or clause (23B) or sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10, as the case may be, by such [research association], news agency, association or institution or fund or trust or university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution, where in his view such contravention has taken place; and (ii) the approval granted to such research association or other association or fund or trust or institution or university or other educational institution or hospital or other medical institution has been withdrawn or notification issued in respect of such news agency or fund or trust or institution has been rescinded : Provided further that where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the activities of the university, college or other institution referred to in clause (ii) and clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 are not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection is received under sub-section (2), issue such directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment. (6) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall issue the directions referred to in subsection (5), after considering the following, namely:- (a) draft order; (b) objections filed by the assessee; (c) evidence furnished by the assessee; (d) report, if any, of the Assessing Officer, Valuation Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer or any other authority; (e) records relating to the draft order; (f) evidence collected by, or caused to be collected by, it; and (g) result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be made by, it. (7) The Dispute Resolution Panel may, before issuing any directions referred to in sub-section (5), - (a) make such further enquiry, as it thinks fit; or (b) cause any further enquiry to be made by any income-tax authority and report the result of the same to it. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e purposes of this section, - (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board54 for this purpose; (b) "eligible assessee" means,- (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in subsection (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company.' 20. Under Section 144 (C) of the Act, it is evident that the assessing officer is required to pass only a draft assessment order on the basis of the recommendations made by the TPO after giving an opportunity to the assessee to file their objections and then the assessing officer shall pass a final order. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, this procedure has not been followed by the second respondent inasmuch as a final order has been straightaway passed without passing a draft assessment order. 21. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, in the order passed on 26.03.2013, the second respondent even raised a demand as also imposed penalty. Such demand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order dated 26.03.2013 is only a final order and it was directed to be treated as a draft assessment order. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision Deepak Agro Foods (supra) wherein in Para No.10, the Honourable Supreme Court discussed as to when an order could be construed as a final order:- "10. Shri Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that in the light of its afore-extracted observations and a clear finding that the assessment order for the assessment year 1995-96 had been anti-dated, the order was null and void. It was urged that assessment proceedings after the expiry of the period of limitation being a nullity in law, the High Court should have annulled the assessment and there was no question of a fresh assessment. Thus, the nub of the grievance of the appellant is that in remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer, the High Court has not only extended the statutory period prescribed for completion of assessment, it has also conferred jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer, which he otherwise lacked on the expiry of the said period." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad (supra) wherein the Division Bench of the Allahabd High Court held that a notice contemplated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is a jurisdictional notice and it is not curable by issuing a notice under Section 292 B of the Act, if it was not served in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 27. Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court in the decision in the case of V. Ramaiah (supra) Madras held that when an order is passed under Section 158BC of the Act instead of Section 158BD, it is not valid since it is not a defect curable under Section 292B of the Act. It was also held that an order passed after the period of limitation laid down in Section 158BC is not a valid order. It was further held that when there is a prescribed procedure contemplated under the Act or in a particular section and it is violated, then it cannot be cured. In the present case, certain procedure has been contemplated under Section 144C of the Act and they have been violated by the second respondent by passing final order of assessment and therefore such order passed by the second rspondent has got no jurisdiction or it can be cured by virtue of iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., notice under Section 143 (2) should be issued within one year from the date of filing of the block return. Omission on the part of the assessing officer to issue notice under Section 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and is not curable." 30. It is evident from the above decision of the Division Bench of this Court that where there is an omission on the part of the assessing officer to follow the mandatory procedures prescribed in the Act, such an omission cannot be termed as a mere procedural irregularity and it cannot be cured. 31. In identical case as that of the case on hand, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in an unreported decision, had an occasion to consider the scope of the validity of the demand notice issued by the assessing officer in the case of Zuari Cement Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held as under:- "A reading of the above section shows that if the assessing officer proposes to make, on or after 01.10.2009, any variation in the income or loss returned by an assessee, then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act, he shall first pass a draft assessment order, forward it to the assessee and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e effect from 01.10.2009. In our view, the circular No.5/2010 issued byt he CBDT stating that S.144C(1) would apply only from the assessment year 2010-2011 and subsequent years and not for the assessment year 2008-09 is contrary to the express language in S.144C(1) and the said view of the Revenue is unacceptable. The circular may represent only the understanding of the Board/Central Government of the statutory provisions, but it will not bind this Court or the Supreme Court. It cannot interfere with the jurisdiction and power of this Court to declare what the legislature says and take a view contrary to that declared in the circular of the CBDT (Ratan Melting and Wire Industries Case (1 Supra), Indra Industries (2 supra). The Revenue has not been able to pursuade us to take a contra view by citing any authority. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the impugned order of assessment dated 23.12.2011 passed by the respondent is contrary to the mandatory provisions of S.144C of the Act and is passed in violation thereof. Therefore, it is declared as one without jurisdiction, null and void and unenforceable. Consequently, the demand notice dated 23.12.2....