TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act dated 17.06.2022 passed by the TPO and he also brought to our notice page 249 of the appeal set wherein TPO has dealt with the issue of payment of royalty as per the direction of ld. DRP. Ld. AR brought our notice page 156 of the appeal set which is the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 30.06.2022. Ld. AR submitted that jurisdiction to pass the assessment order ends on 30.06.2022 and Assessing Officer has passed the above final assessment order without incorporating the directions of ld. DRP. He also brought to our notice draft assessment order and the final assessment order and submitted that there is no change in the contents of both assessment order. The Assessing Officer passed the above final assessment order on the last date of limitation period i.e. 30.06.2022 and subsequently passed a corrigendum order u/s 144C(13) of the Act dated 27.07.2022. In this regard, ld. AR submitted that the corrigendum passed on 27.07.2022 is beyond jurisdiction and once the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer without following the directions of ld. DRP, impugned order is beyond jurisdiction. The second issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer even though on receipt of OGE from TPO failed to pass the final assessment order incorporating the same. In the present case, the Assessing Officer had passed the 'FAO' within time, however, not followed the directions of ld. DRP. Subsequently, he passed the corrigendum to cover up the statutory functions as per the provisions of section 144C of the Act. We observed that the facts in the present case are exactly similar to the facts in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Lionbridge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. TS-1267-Hon'ble High Court-2018 (BOM)-TP (supra) and M/s. I.A.R. System Aktiebolag Deloitte (supra). 5. In the case of Pr.CIT vs. Lionbridge Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under "9. The Tribunal by the impugned order, noted the fact that even, according to the Assessing Officer, the time to complete the Assessment, consequent to the order dated 25th January, 2012 of the Tribunal expired on 31st March, 2012. This in terms of Section 153(2A) of the Act. In this case, the Tribunal held that the final order was passed on 12th March, 2012. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer after having become functus Officio, on 16th April, 2014 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....144C(13) of the Act. Nevertheless, the Draft Assessment Order should have in the present facts been passed before 31st March, 2014 in terms of Section 153A(2A) of the Act. In this case, undisputedly, a final order was passed on 12th March, 2014 and is being sought to be corrected by issue of corrigendum on 16th April, 2014 i.e. after the time to pass the Draft Assessment Order has expired. In fact, the Tribunal placed reliance upon the decision of a single judge of the Madras High Court in Vijay Television (P) Ltd., (supra). This, decision has now been upheld by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Vijay Television (P) Ltd., 407 ITR 642. In the above case, non issue of Draft Assessment Order could not be corrected by issuing a corrigendum to a final Assessment Order. Just as in the facts before the Madras High Court, here also the demand notice and institution of pending proceedings were not withdrawn by the corrigendum. Besides, in International Air Transport Association v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 68 taxmann.com 246 - this Court has held that the Draft Assessment Order is necessary in terms of Section 144 C(1) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of the assessee and after detailed analyses of the issue on record and also relying on various case laws held that the receipts of income by the assessee are taxable under the head "Royalty" and in objection filed by the assessee before Ld. DRP and Ld. DRP has held that the above receipts received by the assessee is involvement of support services to the extent of Rs..36,37,596/- and other portion of the income includes sale of software and hardware. Without going into merits of the findings of the Ld. DRP, we observe that Ld. DRP has come to the conclusion on their own analysis that the case of the assessee falls under FTS. We observe that while passing the final Assessment Order Assessing Officer has not followed the directions of the Ld. DRP and passed his own Assessment Order by merely reproducing his analysis in draft Assessment Order. 19. From the record we observe that the final Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer is not as per section 144C(13) of the Act. However, Assessing Officer has filed a note in support of his final Assessment Order in which he has made submissions that the order passed by him is analyzing the various issue which are without....