AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order dated 25.03.2023 is challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner filed his return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Income Tax Act) for assessment year 2018-2019 on 24.11.2018. Upon the petitioner's case being selected for scrutiny, a notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the petitioner and the assessment was transferred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act for determination of the arm's length price (ALP) with respect to all international transactions reported by the assessee. The TPO issued the transfer pricing order on 28.07.2021 and proposed a downward adjustment of Rs. 2,76,07,981/- with regard to ALP of international transactions. Thereafter, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation period of one month expired on 31.07.2022. By also referring to sub-section (12) of Section 144C, learned counsel contended that the DRP is required to issue directions within nine months of the reference. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax and another v. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited, W.A.No.1517 and 1519 of 2021, Judgment dated 09.06.2022 (Roca), he pointed out that the Division Bench of this Court held that irrespective of whether the DRP issues directions within nine months, the assessing officer should pass orders within one month in line with the scheme of the Income Tax Act. 3. The second ground of challenge was that the jurisdictional assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the ITBA portal constitutes valid and sufficient service and that limitation should be computed on that basis. Since the directions of the DRP were uploaded on the ITBA portal on 17.06.2022, as evinced by the email dated 25.08.2022 at page no.134 of the typed set of papers, learned counsel submits that the period of limitation is required to be computed from the end of June 2022. 4. Mr.R.S.Balaji, learned senior standing counsel, made submissions in response and to the contrary. As regards the contention relating to limitation, he relied on the language of sub-section (13) of Section 144C to contend that the period of limitation would run from the date of receipt of directions by the jurisdictional assessing officer. By relying on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its that the jurisdictional assessing officer was fully authorised to issue the assessment order on 25.03.2023 when such order was issued. 6. The interpretation of sub-section 13 of Section 144C takes centre stage in the adjudication of this dispute. The said sub-section is set out below: "(13) Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 [or section 153B], the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. " From the above provision, it is evident that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he date of receipt should be reckoned as the date of receipt by the National Faceless Assessment Centre on 17.06.2022. The internal arrangement by which the assessment proceedings relating to the petitioner were purportedly transferred so as to ensure that the proceedings are not barred by limitation is not material for this purpose. Indeed, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the communication dated 12.04.2022 from the PCCIT of the National Faceless Assessment Centre seeking approval for transfer so as to complete assessment within the period of limitation underscores the fact that the income tax authorities were mindful of the fact that assessment would be barred by limitation unless such assessment is proceeded with and c....