2024 (8) TMI 1486

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ord. 3. The chronological events are as under: Dates Particulars 21.01.2021 TPO order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (Pg. 283 of the appeal set) 17.04.2021 Draft assessment order passed by the NFAC (Pg. 199 of the appeal set) 04.10.2021 DRP Directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel(Pg. 88 of the appeal set) 11.10.2021 Intimation letter(Pg. 87 of the appeal set) 29.11.2021 TPO passes the consequential appeal effect order(Pg. 83 of the appeal set) 27.12.2021 Final assessment order is passed by NFAC (Pg. 1 of the appeal set)- barred by time limitation 4. From the above, it is beyond doubt that the final Assessment Order has been barred by limitation. 5. On this issue, it is als....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... file objections before the DRP in accordance with Section 144C(2) of the Act. The power of the AO to complete the assessment on the basis of the draft order stands interdicted in case objections have come to be preferred within the 30 day period as contemplated in Section 144C(2) of the Act. It is the DRP which thereafter proceeds to decide the objections and frame directions to enable the AO to complete the assessment in accordance with Section 144C(5) of the Act. 15. In terms of sub-section (13) of Section 144C of the Act, the AO is mandated to complete the assessment "in conformity with the directions" as framed by the DRP. That very provision commands the AO to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y complete the assessment and he does not even have to hear the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall simply comply with the directions received from the DRP within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received." 18. In this backdrop, we note that both the judgments of the Bombay High X Court in Shell India and Vodafone Idea construe the time lines as provided in Section 144C to be mandatory in character. In our considered opinion, this interpretation is in accord with the intent behind insertion of that provision and the bare text and spirit of that section. Thus, we accord our approval to the interpretation as set out in the aforenoted decisions of the Bombay High Court. 19. Further, the procedu....