TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1675
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the procedure stipulated u/s 144C of the Act and is liable to be annulled. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act dated May 31, 2022 ("Second Assessment Order") is bad in law and void-abinitio since the Act allows the Ld. AO to serve only one final assessment order u/s 143(3) for a particular AY, while the same had already been issued by NaFAC dated September 15, 2021 in violation of the provisions of the Act. Common Grounds 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the orders passed by the Ld. AO / TPO / DRP in respect of transfer pricing adjustment are not in accordance with law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case, are bad in law and liable to be annulled. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred in making a downward adjustment of INR 33,24,35,034 on Transfer Pricing issues. While making the said downward adjustment, the Learned AO/TPO/DRP have erred in: i. Not accepting the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a capital-intensive LNG & Port industry which involves long gestation period and ROCE is the correct benchmark. 5.7 Arbitrarily rejecting one of the functionally comparable companies selected by the Assessee, namely Ennore Port Limited (now known as Kamarajar Port Limited) on account of earning higher profits 5.8 Computing the incorrect margins of certain companies considered in the final set (Without prejudice) 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, thus violating the principles of natural justice, and concluding the proceedings in a haste causing prejudice to the Appellant. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP/TPO have erred in rejecting the additional ground of objection filed by the Appellant without considering the same on merits or providing any logical rationale for its rejection. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Repayment of Unsecured Loan 8. The Ld. AO/ TPO/ DRP have erred in making a downward adjustment of INR 12,63,95,034 in relation to accrued interest on repayment of u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in not providing the credit of taxes already paid by the Assessee in the notice of demand & tax computation sheet accompanied with the Second Assessment order. 11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying consequential interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act. 12. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing, of the appeal." 3. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 31.05.2022. The issue for consideration before us is the validity of the aforesaid assessment passed by the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raised by the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed final assessment order pursuant to DRP directioins, in which certain transfer pricing adjustments were made vide order dated 31.05.2022. The assessee filed appeal before us, against the said final assessment order dated 31.05.2022. 4. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the entire assessment proceedings in the case of Hazira Port Private Limited for Assessment Year 2017-18 are vitiated due to serious legal infirmities in the manner in which the final assessment orders were passed. The Counsel argued that the final order dated 15.09.2021 is void ab initio as it was passed in disregard of the binding procedure laid down in section 144C of the Act. The statutory framework requires the AO to mandatorily wait for DRP's directions if objections are filed within time. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents including Century Plyboards (India) Ltd. vs ACIT 126 taxmann.com 256 (Kol ITAT), Global One India (P.) Ltd. 112 taxmann.com 185 (Del ITAT), LG Soft India (P.) Ltd. 140 taxmann.com 174 (Karnataka High Court) and several other binding rulings, including that of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that the entire assessment proceedings are vitiated and liable to be quashed in their entirety. 5. In response, the Ld. DR submitted that the first assessment order dated 15.09.2021 was passed by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) strictly in accordance with Section 144C(3) of the Act, as the assessee had failed to validly intimate the filing of objections with the DRP. Although the assessee claimed to have sent such intimation via email and physical submission, the Ld. DR contended that these were not in compliance with the statutory requirements under Section 144B of the Act, as the communications were not sent through the registered account on the designated e-filing portal and were made to non-designated email addresses from an unregistered email ID. Therefore, these communications never reached the FAO and could not be treated as valid. The Ld. DR submitted that the entire faceless assessment mechanism depends on communications being routed through proper electronic channels, and any deviation renders such communications legally ineffective. Since no valid response was received from the assessee within the prescribed time of 30 days, the FAO was right in concluding t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s dated 15.09.2021 and appeal against such order is pending disposal before Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed another assessment order, pursuant to directions of DRP dated 31.05.2022, against which the appeal is pending before us. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31.05.2022 is bad in law and void-ab-initio since the Act only allows the Assessing Officer to pass one final assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act for any particular assessment year, while the same has already been passed / issued by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 15.09.2021. The appeal against the said order is pending adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the issuance of two assessment orders in respect of the same assessment year is clearly against the provisions of the Act. The assessee relied on judicial precedents in support of the contention that once the assessment proceedings have been finalized, the Assessing Officer does not have jurisdiction to pass another assessment order for the same year. It was submitted that once the final order dated 15.09.2021 was passed by the As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion regarding or filing of objections before DRP that the Assessing Officer proceeded to finalize the assessment order dated 15.09.2021, against which the assessee is in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and such appeal is pending adjudication. When the proceedings before DRP started, the assessee intimated the DRP that the assessee had already filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the initial assessment order dated 15.09.2021 on 11.10.2021. The assessee vide letter dated 14.03.2022 filed an application for withdrawal of DRP objections, but DRP rejected the application for withdrawal and passed it's final directions on 28.04.2022. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the second assessment order dated 31.05.2022 to give effect to the directions of DRP passed on 28.04.2022. On consideration of the above facts, with regards to the second assessment order dated 31.05.2022, we are of the considered view that once the assessee has duly intimated the DRP that the assessment order had been finalized and the appeal against the same had already been filed and is pending adjudication before CIT(A), the DRP could not have proceeded to issue directions necessitating passing of another assess....