TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. "Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 as 12.03.2016. Hence, the failure of the Assessing Officer to proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hstanding 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 (g) result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be made by, it. (7) The Dispute Resolution Panel may, before issuing any directions referred to in sub-section (5).- (a) make such further enquiry, as it thinks f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation 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: Provided that no direction shall be issued after the 31st day of March, [2025]. (14D) Every notification issued under sub-section (14B) and sub-section (14C) shall, as soon as may be after the notification is issued, be laid before each House of Parliament.] (15) For the purposes of this section,- (a) "Disp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ily 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 submitted that the Assessing Officer did not pass the final assessment order under sub-section (4) of Section 144C of the Act. The assessee, on the other hand, contends that although the notice was received by the Company's Security Personnel on 12.03.2016, the concerned officer actually received it on 14.03.2016, and accordingly, the date of service of the draft order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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 service as stated by the assessee, and it is therefore not open to him to compute the thirty-day period from 14.03.2016. 15. The question whether the assessee's interpretation of the date of service is to be accepted, or whether the incorrect mention of the date was intended to mislead the Assessing Officer, and that the assessee cannot take advantage of its own mistake, is a....