TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 190
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of arrangement (amalgamation), the assessee company i.e., Dorling Kindersley India Pvt. Ltd., merged with TutorVista Global Pvt. Ltd., and thereafter change in name happened and now, the name of the company changed to Pearson India Education Services Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the assessee or the company). 3. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan stated that the assessee has moved a petition under Rule 11 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (hereinafter the 'Rules') for admission of additional grounds. The ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the first two additional grounds which raises the issue of jurisdiction that the assessment order passed by AO i.e., final assessment order u/s.143(3)/144C of the Act, dated 22.02.2011 is barred by limitation. For this, assessee has raised following two additional grounds:- 4. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Vedanta Limited vs. ACIT, (2020) 422 ITR 262(Mad) has held that the provisions of section 144C of the Act are prospective and will apply for and from assessment year 2011-12. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocessed u/s.143(1) of the Act and subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny assessment by issuing notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. The AO prepared draft assessment order u/s.144C(1)of the Act dated 24.12.2010 and the assessee accepted the draft assessment order in term of the provisions of section 144C of the Act and accordingly, final assessment order was passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act vide order dated 22.02.2011. Now, the assessee has challenged the impugned assessment order i.e., final assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 22.02.2011 by raising these additional grounds. 8. The ld.counsel for the assessee first of all took us through the provisions of section 144C of the Act, wherein the provision envisaged preparing of draft assessment order by the AO in term of section 144C(1) of the Act and thereafter the procedure prescribed for challenging before DRP as well as acceptance given by assessee of the variations made by the AO to the returned income of the assessee and subsequently can be challenged before CIT(A). The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the provisions of section 144C was introduced in the Income Tax Act by the Finance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the introduction of section 144C of the Act and in view of settled position that the law applicable on the first day of assessment year should be reckoned as applicable law for assessment year for that year and hence, the inescapable conclusion is that the provisions of section 144C can be held to be applicable only prospectively i.e. from the assessment year 2011-12. The ld.counsel also took us through the timelimit provided u/s.153 of the Act and stated that the thirty three months provided in the Act by the Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 01.06.2007 reads as under:- 153. Time limit for completion of assessments and reassessments (1) 1 No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of (a) two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable; or (b) one year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988 , or any earlier assessment year, is filed under sub- section (4) or sub- section (5) of section 139, whichever is later.] Provided that in case the assessment year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tober 2009 and also Circulars issued by CBDT i.e. Explanatory Circular No.5 of 2010 dated 03.06.2010 and Circular No.9 of 2013, dated 19-11-2013. We noted that these Circulars are considered by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Vedanta Ltd., supra and Hon'ble Madras High Court has noted that there is change in the forum of assessment itself and further goes on that such change is not a mere deviation in procedure but a substantive shift in the manner of framing of assessment. The Hon'ble Court noted that a substantive right has enured to the parties by virtue of introduction of section 144C of the Act and thereby the same was held to be applicable only prospectively from assessment year 2011-12. 10.1 The ld.counsel for the assessee also relied on the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Tribunal i.e., Delhi Bench in the case of A.T. Kearney Ltd., for assessment year 2003-04 in ITA No.4405/Del/2011, order dated 25.05.2021, wherein it was held as under:- 13. We find that the only decision which is directly on the point of dispute before us is that of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Vedanta Ltd. (supra) where there was a direct challenge to the applicabil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dity of corrigendum issued subsequently, whether the same could cure the invalidity of the assessment? Thus, the issue decided by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court is different than the controversy decided in the case of Vedanta Ltd. (supra). 10.2 We noted from the above decision A.T. Kearney Ltd., supra that the Tribunal relying on the Madras High Court decision in the case of Vedanta Ltd., supra, noted that there was a direct challenge to the applicability of section 144C of the Act to the assessment proceedings for assessment year 2007-08 on the ground that the said provision would apply prospectively from assessment year 2011-12. The Tribunal relying on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court held the assessment is barred by limitation. We have gone through the provisions and case laws relied on and noted that the procedural amendment affecting vested substantive rights of a litigant party are prospective unless and until specifically made applicable retrospectively. We noted that Lord Denning in Blyth v Blyth, (1966) 1 All ER 524 observed that "The rule that an Act of Parliament is not to be given retrospective effect applies only to statutes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of change of jurisdiction/ forum by way of amendment thereafter. 10.5 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Videocon International Limited vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2015) 4 SCC 33, incorporating the principles of prospective application of statutes dealing with vested rights reiterated the same position and held that the general legal principle is that the law which introduces in a change in forum is not applicable on the pending actions or proceedings unless the intention to the contrary is clearly shown. The court further observed that one of the modes for showing such intentions could be by incorporating a provision of change-over proceedings from the court where they are pending to the court which now has the jurisdiction to try such cases. Additionally, the court held that no litigant has a vested right in the matter of procedural law but when there is a change of forums then it is no longer a question of procedural law but becomes a vested right. 10.6 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussing the general principles concerning restrospectivity carried out discussion in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd., (2014) 367 ITR 466 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....02.2011 requested the AO that they are not filing objection before DRP and they are preferring appeal before CIT(A) and the relevant text of the letter reads as under:- "This is with reference to the subject order received by the assessee on 31st Dec 2010, wherein, your goodself had proposed to make an addition of Rs.10,74,51,644/-. In this regard, we wish to inform you that we are not in agreement with the adjustments/additions proposed in the draft order u/s 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and we have decided to prefer an appeal before the CIT(A) instead of an appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel. In view of the above we request you to kindly pass the final order. Therefore, in view of sub-section (4) r.w.sub-section (3) of section 144C of the Act, the assessment order is being passed. 10.8 In term of the above, the ITO, Ward 10(4), New Delhi framed final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 22.02.2011. We have reproduced the extract of the provisions of section 153 of the Act as applicable to assessment year 2007-08 in above para 8.2 and the details of particular for assessment year 2007-08 i.e., the events and dates a....