MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO,NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI/LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER IS ASSTT, CIT- CC-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1058/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 July 2023AY 2016-177 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the TPO's order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit, making it illegal. Consequently, the assessee was not an 'eligible assessee', and the extended time limit for the AO was not available. Therefore, the final assessment order was also barred by limitation and was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., filed its return of income for AY 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the Arm's Length Price of international transactions. The TPO passed an order on November 1, 2019, proposing an adjustment. The final assessment order was passed on April 29, 2021.

What were the issues?

Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer's order and the subsequent assessment order were passed within the statutory time limits prescribed under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92CA,Section 153,Section 144C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani, AR
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Hearing: 18.07.2023Pronounced: 20.07.2023
1.

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd [ Assessee/ Appellant] for A.Y. 2016-17, against the assessment order passed by the National e-assessment Centre, Delhi, [ The ld AO ] dated 29th April, 2021, passed under Section 143 read with section 144C(13) read with section 144(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), wherein total income was assessed at ₹3,83,48,30,210/-. The assessee filed its return of income [ ROI] on 28th

2. The assessee aggrieved with the same has preferred this appeal on several grounds.

3.

At the time of hearing assessee filed an application for admission of additional ground of appeal as under, The application of the additional ground shows that the following two grounds are raised:-

“1. Reference to TPO under section 92CA was made beyond permissible period as prescribed under section 153(1) and hence assessment is barred by limitation

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the reference to the TPO made on 1.10.2019 is barred by limitation within the meaning of s 153(1)/ (4) of the Act and hence bad in law, rendering the TP Order dated 1.11.2019 non-est, the reference to the DRP u/s 144C bad in law and the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C r.w.s 153 barred by limitation;

2.

Final assessment order passed by AO is barred by limitation

Without prejudice to the above, in any event, the said final assessment order is barred by limitation, the TPO order u/s 92CA (3) itself having being passed on 1/11/2019, instead of

4.

Assessee submitted that additional ground raised are purely jurisdictional, legal and goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, same should be admitted.

5.

The learned Departmental Representative vehemently opposed and submitted that assessee has not raised this additional ground before the lower authorities and therefore, assessee should not be allowed to raise the same at this point.

6.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also considered the application for admission of the additional ground raised by the assessee. By this ground of appeal assessee challenges the validity of the assessment order stating that assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 153 of the Act . For verification of the same only respective dates are required to be looked into the various orders. Other than that no other facts are required to be investigated. This is a jurisdictional issue which can be raised at any time. Accordingly, we admit the additional ground raised by the assessee.

7.

The learned Authorized Representative submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Madras high court and several decision of coordinate

9.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions, verified the dates for the orders of lower authorities and also perused the judicial precedents cited before us. We find that for A.Y. 2016-17, the due date for passing final assessment order is 31st December, 2018, being 21 months time from the end of the assessment year under Section 153(1) of the Act. If valid reference to the transfer pricing officer is made, further 12 months time is available in terms of provision of 153(4) of the Act. According to the provisions of Section 92CA(3A) of the Act, the transfer pricing officer has to pass an order under

10.

In view of our finding in case of additional grounds raised by the assessee, all other grounds are not required to be adjudicated.

11.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.07. 2023.

More judgments on Section 92CA

All 3,978 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →