TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time of hearing on 08.04.2025, the ld. DR has sought adjournment on the basis that report has to be called from the AO which was opposed by the ld. counsel on the basis that the additional ground was filed on 11.03.2025 and on 20th March, 2025 the Bench had directed the ld. DR to call for a report from the AO on the aforesaid additional ground. He opposed the adjournment on the basis that from the facts available on record the additional ground can be adjudicated. Accordingly, the Bench had heard the argument and was convinced that the record available is sufficient to determine the issue raised. However, still, the ld. DR was given an opportunity to file a factual report, if any, rebutting the additional ground and, accordingly, a report has also been filed by the Revenue. 4. At outset it is pertinent to mention that as the additional ground is a pure question of law which can be adjudicated on basis of admitted facts, same is admitted. 5. The contention of the ld. counsel is that the DRP order is dated 13.09.2021 and vide DIN & Document No.ITBA/DRP/S/91/2021-22/1036002837(1)/172 dated 29.09.2021, the DRP order was communicated to the AO and thereupon as per the provisions o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Directions/Order would be reflected automatically in the pending assessment work-item either with FAO or JAO - provided that at the time of initiating DRP proceedings, in ITBA DRP Module, DRP users had selected the Draft order u/s 144C in the system itself, rather than entering the details on the ITBA screen on its own. If, at the time of initiating DRP proceedings, the DRP user had not selected the Draft Order u/s 144C in the system, and had rather entered the details manually on the ITBA screen on its own, then the DRP Order will not reflect inside the pending / Assessment Proceedings work-item. In either of the above scenarios, however, the DRP order would be visible in the '360 Degree' screen to the FAO if any assessment work item is pending with the FAO related to that PAN. The JAOs can view the DRP order in '360 Degree' screen for all the PANs existing in their jurisdiction. Besides, JAO can also get the details from DRP by offline letter/communication. FAOs can also call for any details from JAOs by using the 'Issue Letter' functionality inside the workitem, and in response the JAOs can upload the details by using "Uploading of Documents based on the DIN/PAN-AY" scr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the DRP would be visible to the officer and cannot be taken to fluctuate from one methodology to another depending on the option exercised by the user. 37. The fact that the FAO has merely chosen to await intimation when the order had admittedly been uploaded on the ITBA by the DRP user, and his consequent belated response, cannot thus lead to a situation of disadvantage to the assessee, particularly when the Advisory provides a methodology by which the FAO can access the document uploaded by the DRP simultaneously, and realtime. 38. Lastly, Section 144C is a Code by itself that provides for very strict timelines for completion of an assessment. Hence the stipulation in regard to limitation cannot be reckoned in a manner so as to give rise to more than one interpretation, where either party can take benefit of a later date. 39. This issue has also attracted the attention of the Bombay and Delhi High Courts in Vodafone Idea Limited V. Central Processing Centre and others (459 ITR 413) and Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13(1) and Others (Manu/DE/4671/2024). In both the cases, the very submissions a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 (Madras); (iv) Haier Appliances (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No. 417/DEL/2022; & (v) Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd, v. DCIT, ITA No. 1863/Del/2022. 9. In the light of the above, we are of the considered view that the case of AO, that limitation to pass the final order has to be taken from the date of receipt of DRP order, as per the receipt stamp of 8.10.21, is not sustainable. The electronic transmission of communication on ITBA portal vide letter dated 29.9.2021, has to be construed to be the date of receipt of DRP order thus impugned final order dated 30.11.2021 is passed beyond period of limitation prescribed u/s 144C(13) of the Act. The additional ground is sustained. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. The impugned assessment order, being non est, is quashed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.06.2025. ============= Document 1 OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRANSFER PRICING-3(2)(2), DELHI ROOM NO. 805, 8THFLOOR, E-2 BLOCK, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002 F.No. DCIT/TPO-3(2)(2)/Misc /2025-26/ /3 Dated: 23 . 4 .2025 To The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 19(1), New Delhi Subject: Comments ....