TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act dated 17-01-2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudice to the interests of the appellant. General ground 2 The Ld. AO ought to have appreciated the fact that proceedings u/s 153C shall not be initiated on the same issue as the proceedings u/s 148 has not been closed. Technical Ground 3 The Ld. AO erred in considering the fact that the final assessment order u/s 144C(13) passed on 17-01-2025 is barred by limitation u/s 153B of the Act as the notice u/s 153C was issued on 03-08-2022 and the time limit to finalize the assessment is on or before 31-03-2024. Technical Ground 4 The Ld. A.O erred in considering the satisfaction note under section 153C for all the assessment years 2014-15 to 2020-21 was given in a common satisfaction which is not valid and satisfaction note provided for the relevant assessment year was beyond the time period for the year under consideration. Technical ground 5 The Ld. AO erred in considering the fact that the six assessment years relating to the previous year in which the satisfaction note issued comes to AY 2017-18 to AY 2022-23. Therefore the A.O erred in following the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the assessee has filed his return of income on 07/07/2023 declaring 'nil' income. 4. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O on the basis of material found and seized during the course of search in the case of Skill Promoters (P) Ltd observed that the assessee has purchased commercial spaces at Sarath City Capital Mall, Kondapur, vide agreement dated 19th August, 2015 and 20th December, 2025 and also paid cash consideration for purchase of property. Therefore, called upon the assessee to explain as to why the addition should not be made in respect of investment made in the purchase of commercial space under section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In response, the assessee furnished reply on 11/03/2024 and submitted that he has purchased commercial space from Skill Promoters (P) Ltd and paid consideration through legitimate banking channels only. The A.O after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the seized material during the course of search, observed that, on analysis of excel sheets pertaining to the assessee, it was found that the name of the assessee is clearly mentioned.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment order on or before 31/03/2024, whereas the A.O has passed the final assessment order on 17/01/2025 which is clearly beyond the limitation provided under the Act. Therefore, he submitted that the order passed by the A.O is invalid and same needs to be quashed. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Syed Ahmed Zeeshanuddin vs. ADIT (International Taxation) in ITA No.156/Hyd/20024 dated 29/10/2024. 8. The Ld. CIT-(DR, Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik present for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that there is no merit in the argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee in light of provisions of section 153B of the Act, because once the assessee is an eligible assessee then as per the provisions of section 144C of the Act, the A.O will get one month time from the end of the month in which the directions of the DRP was received and in the present case, the Ld. DRP has issued directions dated 30/12/2024 and the A.O has passed the final assessment order on 17/01/2025 which is well within the limitation provided under section 144C of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of assessment is 12 months from the end of financial year in which last authorization was executed or 12 months from the end of financial year in which books of accounts or other documents received by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over other such person. Therefore, as per section 153B and third proviso, time limit for making the assessment or re-assessment in the case of the person referred to in section 153C, shall be 12 months from the end of the financial year in which the books of account or documents or assets seized are handed to the A.O having jurisdiction over such other person whichever is later. Since the provision of section 153B of the Act is a separate code and time limit provided thereunder is applicable, notwithstanding anything contained in section 153, in our considered view, the assessment shall be completed as per the time limit prescribed under section 153B of the Act. If we go by the time limit provided under section 153B of the Act, in the present case, search was conducted on 22/10/2019, in the case of M/s. Skill Promoters (P) Ltd and if you consider 12 months from the end of the financial year in which the last of authorization was executed, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant provisions of sections 148, 144C and 153C of the Act, have held that the extended period of 12 months in terms of section 153(4) of the Act is available only where a reference under section 153CA of the Act is made to the TPO, but not in the case of the assessment of a non-resident under section 148 r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, in our considered view, the argument of the Ld. CIT-DR does not hold good and thus, rejected. 11. The assessee has relied upon the decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad Benches, in the case of Shri Syed Ahmed Zeeshanuddin vs. ADIT in ITA No.156/Hyd/2024 dated 29th October 2024. The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, on identical set of facts and in light of an assessment framed under section 153C of the Act and consequent time limit provided under section 153B of the Act, held as under: "8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appellant is an eligible assessee in terms of section 144C(15) of the Act and in case of an eligible assessee, the assessment shall be framed in terms of provision to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b-initio and liable to be quashed. 9. The assessee had relied upon the decision of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Shri Syed Gulam Mohiuddin Vs. ITO in ITA No.136/Hyd/2023 dated 03.06.2024. We find that the coordinate Bench had considered an identical issue of non-resident in terms of section 148 of the Act and after considering the relevant facts including the status of the assessee as non- resident and also the provisions of section 144C(15) and 153 of the Act, held that the extended time of 12 months in terms of section 153(4) of the Act is available only in case, where reference u/s 92CA is made to Transfer Pricing Officer, but not in a case of an assessment of non-resident u/s 148 r.w.s. 144C of the Act. Relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under: "8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The assessee is a non-resident individual for the A.Y 2017- 18 and is an eligible assessee as per section 144C(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 144C of the Act, the assessment of an eligible assessee shall be dealt with in accordance with the said provision. As per the provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the TPO, extended time limit of 12 months for completion of assessment is not available even in a case of Non-Resident assessment, even though the said assessment proceedings is covered u/s 144C of the Act. Since the extended time limit of 12 months is not available in the case of Non-Resident as per section 153(4) of the Act, in our considered view, the Assessing Officer ought to have completed the assessment as per the provisions of section 153(2) of the Act, which is one year from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s 148 was served. In the present case, if we go by date of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act i.e. 30.03.2021, the time limit for completing the assessment u/s 147 was available up to 31/03/2022 and thus, the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 144C dated 12.01.2023 is clearly barred by limitation. 10. This proposition is covered by the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Farooq Ali vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No.104/Hyd/2023 order dated 10/04/2024. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under: "23. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nths", the words "eighteen months" had been substituted: [Provided further that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on the- (i) 1st day of April, 2019, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words "twenty-one months", the words "twelve months" had been substituted; (ii) 1st day of April, 2020, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words "twenty-one months", the words "eighteen months" had been substituted: Provided also that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words "twenty-one months", the words "nine months" had been substituted. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a return under sub-section (8A) of section 139 is furnished, an order of assessment under section 143 or section 144 may be made at any time before the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which such return was furnished. (2) No order of assessment, reassessment or re-comp....