TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctions dated September 23, 2019 issued by the DRP u/s 144C(5) of the Act ('the Impugned order') inter-alia on the following grounds: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO/ DRP has: Reopeninq under section 147 of the Act 1. Erred in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act'), basis a mere change of opinion in respect of transactions/dealings in respect of stream of income which has already been considered in detail by the AO and the TPO during the original assessment proceedings; 2. Erred in reopening the assessment after expiry of 4 years from end of relevant assessment year while the Assessee has disclosed all material facts truly and fully during the assessment proceedings and no new material has come on record; 3. Erred in reopening the assessment in contradiction to third proviso to section 147 of the Act, in respect of stream of income, whose arm's length price is already being disputed by the Assessee before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the original assessment proceedings; Validity of draft assessment order 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithout prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide on the appeal in accordance with the law." 2. The assessee has also raised additional grounds dated 16.03.2021 as follows: "While reopening the assessment for AY 2011-12 beyond period of 4 years, the Assessing Officer is required to obtain the approval from the CIT, with respect to whether the case is fit for reopening and the CIT, is required to provide an approval for the same, by recording appropriate satisfaction. The Appellant wishes to file the additional ground of appeal to challenge the validity of reopening of assessment based on the Mechanical/ Casual approval provided by the CIT/ JCIT without providing detailed reasons in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of German Remedies Ltd (287 ITR 485). Further, it is to be noted that draft reassessment order dated 28 December 2018, has been passed within four weeks of order disposing of the objections (dated 13 December 2018)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act. According to the Id. AR, passing of the draft assessment order along with demand notice and also initiating penalty proceedings along with draft assessment proceedings are bad in law, being contrary to the procedure prescribed under law, thus subsequent final assessment order along with demand notice loses its sanctity. Being so, it deserves to be treated as null and void in the eyes of law. He relied on the following judgments:- 1. Bangalore Tribunal in case of M/s Suretex Prophylactics (India) Pvt Ltd (ITA (TP) 430/Bang/2016) dated April 01,2021 2 Madras High Court in case of Vijay Television Private Limited (407 ITR 642) dated April 23, 2018 3 Mumbai Tribunal in case of Lionbridge Technologies Pvt Ltd (ITA 1041/M/2015) dated May 29, 2015 4. Bombay High Court in case of Lionbridge Technologies Pvt Ltd (ITA 622/2016) dated December 03, 2018 5. Delhi Tribunal in the case of Olympus Medical Systems India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No 8892/Del/2019) dated August 26, 2020 6. Pune Tribunal in the case of Kohler Power India Private Limited (ITA No, 2467/PUN/2016) dated August 26, 2019 7. Delhi Tribunal in the case of Perfetti Van Melle (India) Pvt. Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r on 30.01.2013. Thereafter, according to the petitioner company, the second respondent, instead of passing a provisional order or a draft assessment order, has passed a final assessment order dated 26.03.2013 as contemplated under Section 143(3) of the Act. Section 143(3) and 144(C) of the Act reads as follows:-- '143(3) On the day specified in the notice, -- (i) issued under clause (i) of sub-section (2), or as soon afterwards as may be, after hearing such evidence and after taking into account such particulars as the assessee may produce, the Assessing Officer shall, by an order in writing, allow or reject the claim or claims specified in such notice and make an assessment determining the total income or loss accordingly, and determine the sum payable by the assessee on the basis of such assessment; (ii) issued under clause (ii) of sub-section (2), or as soon afterwards as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce and such other evidence as the Assessing Officer may require on specified points, and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered, the Assessing Officer shall, by an order in writing, make an assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conditions subject to which such university, college or other institution was approved, he may, after giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed withdrawal to the concerned university, college or other institution, recommend to the Central Government to withdraw the approval and that Government may by order, withdraw the approval and forward a copy of the order to the concerned university, college or other institution and the Assessing Officer: Provided also that notwithstanding anything contained in the first and the second provisos, no effect shall be given by the Assessing Officer to the provisions of clause (23C) of section 10 in the case of a trust or institution for a previous year, if the provisions of the first proviso to clause (15) of section 2 become applicable in the case of such person in such previous year, whether or not the approval granted to such trust or institution or notification issued in respect of such trust or institution has been withdrawn or rescinded. 144C. Reference to dispute resolution panel.-- (1) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first instance, forward a dr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (8) The Dispute Resolution Panel may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order so, however, that it shall not set aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under sub-section (5) for further enquiry and passing of the assessment order. Explanation. -- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the power of the Dispute Resolution Panel to enhance the variation shall include and shall be deemed always to have included the power to consider any matter arising out of the assessment proceedings relating to the draft order, notwithstanding that such matter was raised or not by the eligible assessee. (9) If the members of the Dispute Resolution Panel differ in opinion on any point, the point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members. (10) Every direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel shall be binding on the Assessing Officer. (11) No direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee and the Assessing Officer on such directions which are prejudicial to the interest of the assessee or the interest of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has to be raised only after a final order has been passed determining the tax liability. The very fact that the taxable amount has been determined itself would show that it was passed as a final order. In fact, a notice for demand under Section 156 of the Act was issued pursuant to such order dated 26.03.2013 of the second respondent. Both the order dated 26.03.2013 and the notice for demand thereof have been served simultaneously on the petitioner. Therefore, not only the assessment is complete, but also a notice dated 28.03.2013 was issued thereon calling upon the petitioner to pay the tax amount as also penalty under Section 271 of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing on 12.04.2013. Subsequently, the second respondent realised the mistake in passing a final order instead of a draft assessment order which resulted in issuing a corrigendum on 15.04.2013. In the corrigendum it was only stated that the order passed on 26.03.2013 under Section 143C of the Act has to be read and treated as a draft assessment order as per Section 143C read with Section 93CA (4) read with Section 143 (3) of the Act. In and by the order dated 15.04.2013, the second res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... evident from the above decision of the Honourable Supreme Court that if an order is passed beyond the statutory period prescribed, such order is a nullity and has no force of law. In that case before the Honourable Supreme Court, the period for assessment proceedings expired and thereafter, fresh assessment orders have been issued by anti-dating it. In those circumstances, it was held that the High Court ought not to have remanded the matter back to the assessment officer and by doing so, the statutory period prescribed for completion of assessment has been extended by conferring jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer, which he otherwise lacked on the expiry of the said period. In that case, the Honourable Supreme Court also held that there is a distinction between an order which is a nullity and an order which is irregular and illegal. Where an authority making order lacks inherent jurisdiction, such an order will be null and void ab initio, as the defect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and strikes at his very authority to pass any order and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of the parties. 24. This decision squarely applies to the facts of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrigendum. 28. By referring to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 10.02.2014 passed in Tax Case (Appeal) No. 2412 of 2006, the learned standing counsel for the respondents sought to make a distinction with the decision of the Division Bench of this Court mentioned in the preceding paragraph. That is a case where the facts relating to the order covered in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, which the Division Bench relied on, could not be made applicable to the facts of that case and therefore it was not discussed by the Division Bench in the order dated 10.02.2014. For more clarity, the relevant portion of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of V. Ramaiah (supra) is extracted hereunder:-- "Certainly passing an order of assessment under Section 158BC instead of Section 158BD (inspite of clear terminology used in both the sections) would not amount to a mistake, a defect or an omission, much less a curable one. When different contingencies are dealt with under different sections of the Act, allowing an illegality to be perpetrated and then taking a plea by the Revenue that such an action adopted on their part would not n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ections, if any, the assessing officer shall complete assessment within one month. The assessee is also given an option to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel in which event the latter can issue directions for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment. In the case of the petitioner, admittedly the TPO suggested an adjustment of Rs.52.14 crores u/s.92CA of the Act on 20.09.2011 and forwarded it to the Assessing Officer and to the assessee under subsection (3) thereof. The assessing officer accepted the variation submitted by the TPO without giving the petitioner any opportunity to object to it and passed the impugned assessment order. As this has occurred after 01.10.2009, the cut off date prescribed in sub-section (1) of S.144C, the Assessing Officer is mandated to first pass a draft assessment order, communicate it to the assessee, hear his objections and then complete assessment. Admittedly, this has not been done and the respondent has passed a final assessment order dated 22.12.2011 straight away. Therefore, the impugned order of assessment is clearly contrary to S.144C of the Act and is without jurisdiction, null an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Revenue went on appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court. The record of proceedings of the Supreme Court indicate that the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 27.09.2013. 33. The decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court deals with an identical issue as that of the present case. In this case, against the order passed by the second respondent on 26.03.2013, the petitioner filed objections before the DRP, the first respondent herein and the first respondent refused to entertain it by stating that the order passed by the second respondent is a final order and it had jurisdiction to entertain objections only if it is a draft assessment order. While so, the order dated 26.03.2013 of the second respondent can only be termed as a final order and in such event it is contrary to Section 144C of the Act. As mentioned supra, in and by the order dated 26.03.2013, the second respondent determined the taxable amount and also imposed penalty payable by the petitioner. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, even as on this date, the website of the department indicate the amount....