TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing appeal of the assessee by holding that the Final Assessment order passed by assessing authority under section 144C(13) of the Act on 31/8/2016 was beyond period of limitation by erroneously placing reliance on Pune Tribunal Bench in case of TDK Electornics AS V/s ACIT in ITA No.1810/PON/2019 without appreciating the facts particularly when this is a case where assessee had misinformed the assessing officer and also the dRP about the date of receipt of Draft Assessment Order which is crucial for deciding period of limitation"? 2. "Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Tribunal can be said as perverse in law in setting aside the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act as Tribunal has assigning priority to Section 144C(4) over the Sections 144C(2)(b) & 144C(3)(b) when the alter have been circumvented by assessee insofar as objections were filed before DRP on a wrong premise of date of receipt of Draft Assessment Order which is vital factor in deciding period of limitation"? 3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 cannot be held to be time-barred. The assessee, having misled the Assessing Officer by furnishing an incorrect date of service of the draft assessment order, cannot take advantage of its own misstatement to claim statutory protection of limitation. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal be set aside and the final assessment order be restored. 6. Per contra, Sri D.D. Nageswar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, submitted that the draft assessment order was received by the Company's Security Personnel on 12.03.2016, being a Saturday, and was handed over to the concerned officer on 14.03.2016, i.e. the following Monday. Accordingly, the assessee considered 14.03.2016 as the date of service and mentioned the same both in the objections filed before the DRP and in the intimation to the Assessing Officer. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer had with him the details of the date of the draft order, the date of filing of objections before the DRP, and the date of service of the draft order on the assessee. The draft order having been served through speed post, the consignment tracking clearly reflected the date of delivery/service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... variation; or (b) no objections are received within the period specified in sub-section (2). (4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 153 [or section 153B], pass the assessment order under Sub-section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,- (a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection is received under Sub-section (2), issue such directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment. (6) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall issue the directions referred to in sub-section (5), after considering the following, namely:- (a) draft order, (b) objections filed by the assessee; (c) evidence furnished by the assessee; (d) report, if any, of the Assessing Officer, Valuation Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer or any other authority; (e) records relating to the draft order, (f) evidence collected by, or caused to be collected by, it; and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of this section shall not apply to any assessment or reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA.] (14B) The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of issuance of directions by the dispute resolution panel, so as to impart greater efficiency, transparency and account-ability by- (a) eliminating the interface between the dispute resolution panel and the eligible assessee or any other person to the extent technologically feasible; (b) optimising utilisation of the resources through economies of scale and functional specialisation: (c) introducing a mechanism with dynamic jurisdiction for issuance of directions by dispute resolution panel. (14C) The Central Government may, for the purpose of giving effect to the scheme made under sub-section (14B), by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any of the provisions of this Act shall not apply or shall apply with such exceptions, modifications and adaptations as may be specified in the notification: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ither party. Sub-section (12) prescribes the time limit within which the DRP must issue its directions. Finally, sub-section (13) imposes a corresponding duty on the Assessing Officer to pass the final assessment order within one month from the end of the month in which directions of the DRP under sub-section (5) are received. 11. In the present case, we are primarily concerned with the scope of sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) of Section 144C of the Act. The facts before us reveal that the draft assessment order was served on the assessee, who chose to file objections before the DRP and intimated the Assessing Officer regarding the same. Pursuant to this, the Assessing Officer did not pass the assessment order under sub-section (4). An interconnected issue that arises is the consequence of the assessee incorrectly stating the date of service of the draft order, when the objection before the DRP was ultimately rejected as time-barred. 12. The Revenue contends that the draft assessment order was served on the assessee on 12.03.2016, whereas in the intimation dated 13.04.2016, the date of service is shown as 14.03.2016, which fell within the thirty-day period. Consequently, it is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the Assessing Officer, relying on the date of service as 14.03.2016, was satisfied that the objection was filed within thirty days, without verifying the date of service from his own records. The Assessing Officer is not bound by the date of service as acknowledged by the assessee; what is required is the actual service of the communication, which the Assessing Officer effectuated. The draft assessment order was communicated through speed post, and the date of delivery through speed post is the proper basis to compute the thirty-day period. There is no case from the Revenue that the Assessing Officer was handicapped or lacked the means to verify the actual date of service, and it cannot be said that he had no alternative but to rely on the statement of the assessee. The postal tracking status of Indian Post was available to the Assessing Officer to ascertain the correctness of the assessee's claim regarding service. Had due diligence been exercised, the Assessing Officer would have determined the actual date of service and assessed the validity of the objection filed on 13.04.2016. The Assessing Officer, having failed to exercise such diligence, cannot rely on the date of ser....