TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 649
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e aforesaid preliminary issue and, if warranted, we may deliberate upon the other issues raised by the assessee. For adjudicating the preliminary issue noted above, few relevant facts need to be discussed. The assessee is a resident corporate entity, stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of carbon block. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had filed its return of income on 29.11.2018, declaring total income at Rs. 216,88,44,430/-. The return of income so filed by the assessee was picked up for scrutiny. 4. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) having noticed that in the previous year relevant to assessment year under dispute, the assessee had entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs) made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO' for short) to determine the arm's length price ('ALP' for short) of the international transactions and Specified Domestic Transactions ('SDT' for short) as well. While undertaking the transfer pricing analysis u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act, the TPO having found that the price at which the assessee has undertaken transactions with AEs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ving considered rival submission in light of the judicial precedent cited before us and perused the materials on record, we are of the view that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of the co-ordinate bench cited by ld. Counsel for the assessee. In a recent decision in case of Accenture Solutions Private Limited (supra), the coordinate bench relying upon the decision of another Bench in case of Barclays Bank (supra) has held as under: 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. Factual position relating to the issue in dispute are undisputed. As observed elsewhere in the order, the short issue arising for consideration is, whether ld. PCIT can validly assume jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act to revise an assessment order passed in pursuance to the directions of the DRP. Pertinently, section 144C of the Act providing the alternate dispute resolution mechanism by way of reference to ld. DRP was incorporated in the Act by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009. Undisputedly, not only the present assessment year is covered u/s. 144C of the Act, but....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). 14. As against the above, Ld.CIT has noted that in this case TPO has not proposed any adjustment. This is contrary to the facts in this case, the above shows that Ld.CIT has exercised his jurisdiction u/s 263 without properly appreciating the assessment order passed. He also seems to be ignoring the fact that assessee has chosen to file objection before the DRP. When the assessment order has been passed pursuant to the direction of DRP, the appeal from the said assessment order does not lie with the ld.CIT(A), but lies directly to the ITAT as per provision of section 253(d). Now, the issue to be addressed in this case is whether, the Ld.CIT has erred in initiating proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act, when the original assessment order has been passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13), on the basis of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP). 15. We may gainfully refer to the provision of section 263 in this regard. "263. (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the [Assessing] Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of certain superior officers can also be subject matter of section 263. The above explanation does not include the order passed under the direction of DRP u/s. 144C(13) of the Act. The legislature in its wisdom has thought it appropriate to include orders passed by the AO under direction u/s. 144A, but not under direction u/s. 144C(13). This is also in accordance with the provisions of the Act contained in section 144C, which we shall detailed at a later stage. The Ld.CIT in this case seems to be quiet conscious of this fact as he has mentioned on one of the issues, that AO has not properly followed the direction u/s. 144A. But, he is quiet silent and has nowhere mentioned that the final assessment order is passed after the direction of DRP. Admittedly, this is not a case, where draft assessment order is being revised. This is a case where final assessment order passed pursuant to the direction of DRP u/s. 144(3) is being revised by Ld.CIT. Ld. Counsel of the assessee in this regard submits that from the Finance Act, 2009, memorandum explaining the rationale behind the insertion of section 144C of the Act by the Finance Bill, 2009 as also the CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2010 dated 3 J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (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 fit; or (b) cause any further enquiry to be made by any income-tax authority and report the result of the same to it. (8) The Dispute Resolution Panel may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the interface between the dispute resolution panel and the eligible assessee or any other person to the extent technologically feasible; (b) optimizing utilization of the resources through economies of scale and functional specialization; (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 notifications. Provided that no direction shall be issued after the 31st day of March, 2022 (14D) Every notification issued under sub-section(14B) and sub-section (14C) shall, as soon as may be after the notification issued, be laid before each House of parliament] (15) For the purposes of this section,-- (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose; (b) "eligible assessee" means,-- (i) any person in wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Supertech Limit ed v Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors. (MANU/SC/08643/2021). 19. Further, the scheme of the Act itself does not provide any interference in the direction of the DRP as the law containing section 144C(13) directs that the AO shall pass an order inconformity with the directions of the DRP without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. When the Act itself provide, that order has to be passed by the AO without providing any opportunity to the assessee pursuant to the direction of the DRP, the direction given in this order u/s. 263 by the Ld.CIT to the AO to call for the details of allowability of various deductions claimed by the assessee, in light of the observations discussed by him is quiet contrary to the sanguine provisions of law. Even otherwise, the order passed by the Ld.CIT is an exercise in futility inasmuch as, if the AO proceeds to pass an order by giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, the same will be against the mandate of section 144C(13). Furthermore, it is also settled law that in assessment u/s. 144C, AO has to invariably pass a draft assessment order and give the same to the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Jurisdictional High Court held that the assessee had approached the DDIT (investigation) under the Direct tax Amnesty Scheme. The CIT had accepted that the taxable income be computed at 8 percent of the total receipts. A second CIT, on scrutiny and verification of the assesses records, found the decision of the earlier CIT to be fair and justifiable. A subsequent CIT, sought to revise the order under section 263, and tax income at 9 percent of the receipts. The Bombay High Court inter alia held that the assessment orders were solely based on the directives of the earlier CITs, and the same could not be revised by the subsequent CIT under section 263. 24. In light of the above discussion and case laws, the case laws referred by the Ld.CIT-DR are not applicable on the facts of the case. As, we have already noted that the submission of Ld.CIT-DR are at variance with the exposition by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Vodafone India Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra). The Ld.CIT-DR in his submission has emphasized that proceeding before DRP is akin to appeal before Ld.CIT(A). This is quiet contrary to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court exposition noted above and the other decisions of Hon....