TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1010
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions of section 92CA (3) of the Income Tax Act. 1961(ITA) is barred by law of limitation in light of provisions of section 92CA(3A) rws 153 of the ITA and is, therefore, bad in law and illegal 3. Before us ld. Counsel has given the following chronology of events, date of orders passed by the lower authorities as well as the statutory dates for passing the order u/s. 92CA(3A) r.w.s. 153. Sr. No. Particulars of orders/documents Date of orders/documents 1 Date of filing of Return of Income by the appellant for the AY 2010-11 14-10-2010 2 Date of reference u/s 92CA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961('TTA") made by the Ld. Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') to the Ld. Transfer pricing officer (Ld. TPO') 08-11-2012 3 Date of order u/s 92CA(3) of the ITA passed by Ld. TPO 30-01-2014 4 Date of draft assessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the ITA 05-03-2014 5 Date of direction u/s 144C(5) of the ITA, issued by Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel - III, Mumbai 14-11-2014 6 Date of receipt of DRP direction by Ld. AO 28-11-2014 7 Date of final assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer-National e Assessment Centre, Delhi And Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No.979/Mum/2021 5. Atos India Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT-14(1)(1) ITA No.1795/Mum/2017 6. M/s. Teleperformance Services Private Limited (Formerly known as "Inellenet Global Services Pvt. Ltd) vs. The Additional /Joint/Deputy /Assistant / Income Tax Officer -National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi And Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai ITA No.1180/Mum/2021 7. From the perusal of the material placed on record and various dates of orders passing, it is seen that order u/s. 92CA(3) has been passed by the ld. TPO on 30/01/2014 which in view of Section 92CA(3), the time limit to pass the order was 29/01/2014 which is evident from the aforesaid chronology of events. Thus, the ld. TPO's order was passed by limitation by one day and in such scenario once the ld. TPO's order is barred by limitation, then ld. AO was required to pass final order on or before 31/03/2014 which here in this case it was passed on 31/12/2014. 8 In support of the said ground, Ld. Counsel has relied heavily upon the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires:" 18. Ergo, the TPO can pass an order u/s 92CA of the Act at any time before 60 days prior to the date on which period of limitation referred to u/s 153 expires. Thus 60 days have to be counted prior to the date of last date of limitation u/s 153. 19. Section 153 of the Act as applicable for the AY 2012-13 reads as under:- '153. (i) 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 also that in case the assessment year in which the income was first assessable is the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2009 or any subsequent assessment year and during the course of the proceeding for the assessment of total income, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot without significance. It is not open to this court to just consider the word "to" by ignoring "prior". The word "prior" in the present context, not only denotes the flow of direction, but also actual date from which the period of 60 days is to be calculated. It is settled law that while interpreting a statute, it is not for the courts to treat any word(s) as redundant or superfluous and ignore the same. In this connection, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Apex Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, [(2002) 4 SCC 297 : 2002 SCC OnLine SC 413], wherein, it was held as follows: "10. No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. No provision in the statute and no word in any section can be construed in isolation. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally and in the context in which it is used. It is said that every statute is an edict of the legislature. The elementary principle of interpreting any word while considering a statute is to gather the mens or sententia legis of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is to be calculated, reading down the provision with the use of the word "from", which denotes the starting point or period of direction in general parlance, would mean that 60 days "from the last date". Even going by Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, when the word "from" is used, then, that date is to be excluded, implying here that 31.12.2019 must be excluded. After excluding 31.12.2019, if the period of 60 days is calculated, the 60th day would fall on 01.11.2019 and the TPO must have passed the order on or before 31.10.2019 as orders are to be passed before the 60th day. Therefore, either way the contention of the Revenue is a fallacy and has no legs to stand. 31. The next contention that has been raised by the learned senior standing counsel for the appellants is that the usage of the word "may" in Section 92CA (3A) indicates that the time fixed is only directory, a guideline, not mandatory and is for the sake of internal proceedings. 32. Let us now examine the relevant procedures relating to Transfer Pricing. After an international transaction is noticed subject to satisfaction of section 92B, a reference is made to the TPO under sub-Section (1) of Section 92CA of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce is made and after availing the benefit of the extended period to pass orders, the department cannot claim that the time limits are not mandatory. Hence, the contention raised in this regard is rejected. 36. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel for the respondents in WA. Nos. 1148 and 1149/2021, the word "may" has to be sometimes read as "shall" and vice versa depending upon the context in which it is used, the consequences of the performance or failure on the overall scheme and object of the provisions would have to be considered while determining whether it is mandatory or directory. 37. At this juncture, it is noteworthy to mention the commentary of Justice G.P. Singh on the interpretation of statutes, Principles of Statutory Interpretation (1st Edn., Lexis Nexis 2015), which is quoted below for ready reference: "The intention of the legislature thus assimilates two aspects: In one aspect it carries the concept of "meaning" i.e. what the words mean and in another aspect, it conveys the concept of "purpose and object" or the "reason and spirit" pervading through the statute. The process of construction, therefore, combines both literal and p....