AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 527
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017-18 during which the Appellate Order of the ITAT was received. 2. That without prejudice to the legal challenge above and on the merits of the case, the Appellant wishes to contend as under: (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO / TPO has erred in and learned DRP has further erred in not granting the benefit of five percent under the second proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961('the Act') and confirmed an upward TP adjustment amounting to INR 16,79,093 on account of liaison services provided by Zydus Japan to the Appellant. (b) That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs.18,18,96,302/- u/s. 40(a)(i), on the ground that no TDS was made by the Appellant u/s. 195 of the IT. Act. (c) Without prejudice and in the alternative, the learned Assessing Officer erred in not allowing further deduction under Chapter VIA (out of total deduction determined earlier at Rs.152,38,78,465/-) from the income added by way of the aforesaid disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i), which formed part of the Business Income and which was restricted to the extent of the Gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act dated 15-03-2019 as being time barred. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that as per the provisions of section 153(3) of the Act, an order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order under section 254 of the Act by ITAT setting aside or cancelling an assessment, has to be passed before the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which the order under section 254 is received by the Principal Commissioner. In the instant case, the order under section 254 was received by the Principal Commissioner on 06-06-2017, accordingly, the assessment order was to be passed on or before 31st December 2018 being nine months from end of financial year 31st March 2018. Since, the assessment order was passed on 15-03-2019, the same is time barred and hence void ab-initio. 6. In response, the Ld. DR submitted that section 153(3) of the Act does not contain/ govern DRP specifically. Further, he submitted that the ITAT vide Order dated 03-03-2017 remitted the matter to the file of DRP for fresh adjudication. Therefore, first an order was required to be passed by DRP pursuant to directions of ITAT u/s 144C of the Act. The Ld. DR submitted that section 144C sp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner: Provided that where the order under section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner on or after the 1st day of April, 2019, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words "nine months", the words "twelve months" had been substituted. 7.1 From the perusal of the statutory provisions, it may be seen that section 144C of the Act is with respect to initial assessment to be passed by the assessing officer. A perusal of the scheme of section 144C of the Act and more specifically subclauses (12) and (13) to section 144C of the Act speaks of timelines within which the assessing officer is required to pass the assessment pursuant to directions of DRP in the case of original assessment. The language of section 144C of the Act suggests that the timeline for completion of original assessment pursuant to directions of DRP shall not be governed by provision sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen it had issued a notice on 19-2- 2014 and conducted the hearing as early as on 10-3-2014 and on several dates. The DRP at Chennai, in fact ought to have passed orders before 19-11-2014, even if the date of receipt of the notice is taken as 19-2-2014. In that event, the assessing officer ought to have passed the order before 31-12-2014 or at the latest before 31-3-2015 considering that the order was received during the Financial year 2013-14. The transfer of the files to Bengaluru, after the lapse of the time, will not indefinitely extend the time and can have no impact on the time lines. It is an inter-department arrangement and it cannot defeat the rights of the assessee. 22. Insofar as the non-obstante clause in Section 144C(13) is concerned, we concur with the view of the Learned Judge. The exclusion of applicability of Section 153 or Section 153 B is for a limited purpose to ensure that dehors larger time is available, an order based on the directions of the DRP has to be passed within 30 days from the end of the month of receipt of such directions. The section and the sub-section have to be read as a whole with connected provisions to decipher the meaning and inten....