TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2017 in IT(TP)A No.807/Bang/2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Bengaluru (for short "Tribunal"), dismissing the appeal refusing to declare the proceedings under Section 144C of the IT Act as null and void. 2. The appeal coming on for admission on 15.11.2017, this Court admitted the appeal to consider the questions formulated in the appeal, which reads as follows: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law upholding the validity of final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13)? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in failing to follow the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Learned senior counsel Sri. Chythanya for appellant would contend that the final assessment order dated 18.02.2016 is contrary to Section 144C(13) of the IT Act. He invites attention of this Court to the above said provision and submits that the final assessment order ought to have been passed within one month from the end of the month in which communication of order under Section 144C(5) of the IT Act was received. In that, he submits that DRP passed order on 17.12.2015 and the same was communicated on 29.12.2015. Learned counsel submits that the Assessing Authority ought to have passed final assessment order on or before 31.01.2016, whereas the final assessment order is passed on 18.02.2016, as such there is delay of 18 days in passing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal impugned herein and further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Telangana High Court in RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED (supra). Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant/assessee filed returns for the year 2011-12 on 30.09.2011, within the time prescribed. On process of the returns, notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act was issued to the appellant calling for certain information. Thereafter, the case of the appellant was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA of the IT Act. The Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under Section 92CA of IT Act on 30.01.2015 for the assessment year ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one month from the end of December 2015 i.e., the Assessing Officer ought to have passed assessment order on or before 31.01.2016. However, the Assessing Officer passed assessment order only on 18.02.2016, beyond the prescribed time under Sub-Section (13) of Section 144C of the IT Act. Under Sub-Section (13) of Section 144C of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer is mandated to pass order within the time prescribed thereunder and no discretion is vested with the Assessing Officer. Under Sub-Section (13) of Section 144C of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer on receipt of direction under Sub-Section (5) from DRP, mandated to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. In other words, im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., is very clear inasmuch as the assessing officer shall, upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), in conformity with the directions, complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. Sub-section (13) also provides that the assessing officer can complete the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This means that the moment the assessing officer receives the directions under sub-section (5), he has to straightaway 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 Dispute Resolution Panel within one month from the end of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stated to have been dispatched through speed post to the third respondent (TPO) and the fourth respondent (Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi) on 27-6-2022. It is thereafter that the transfer pricing officer appears to have passed the order dated 25 July 2022." 12. In RAPISCAN SYSTEMS PVT. LIMITED (supra), the Division Bench of Telangana High Court while considering Section 144C of the IT Act at paragraph 32 and 33 has observed as follows: "32. In view of the forgoing discussion, there is no cavil of doubt that the Assessing Officer received the Dispute Resolution Panel's directions on June 30, 2022 and, therefore, the limitation must be counted from t....