DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case shows that the i. Assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading, marketing and distribution of dental products, cosmetics, toiletries, leather products. It filed its return of income on 29th January, 2011, ii. declaring total income of ₹339,35,33,267/-, as per normal computation and the book profit under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at ₹518,37,38,685/-. The return of the income was picked up for scrutiny.

The learned Departmental Representative vehemently objected to the same.

We have carefully perused the application of the assessee for admission of the additional ground. The additional ground raised by the assessee are as under:-

We find that the ground raised by the assessee is jurisdictional, which can be raised by assessee at any time during the year, does not require any further investigation of facts, hence, we admit the same.

Adverting to the additional ground of appeal, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that i. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer has passed an order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act on 30 January 2015.

The learned Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that as this issue has not been raised before the lower authority, now the assessee could not raise it. The

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Provisions of section 92 CA (3A) prescribes the date for passing an order u/s 92 CA (3) as "any time before 60 days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153, expires." According to the provisions of section 153 (1) read with section 153 (4), the time limit for passing of the order under section 153 is available up to 31/3/2015. Thus the time limit for passing order under section 92CA (3) expires on or before 29/1/2015.

In the present case, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer for A.Y. 2011-12 has passed the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act on 30th January, 2015. Admittedly, in this case, the time limit for passing the order under section 153 was to expire on 31 March 2015. The time limit for passing of

Now, the issue that arises, if the order passed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer is held to be passed beyond prescribed time limit, the assessee does not

In view of the above facts, without adjudicating on the other grounds of appeal of the assessee and the learned Assessing Officer, we quash the assessment order. Thus, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the additional grounds filed.

Accordingly, appeals of the parties for A.Y. 2011-12 are disposed off. 014. For assessment year 2012 – 13, in ITA number 1977/M/2017 filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under section 143 (3) read with section 144C (13) of the income tax act 1961 dated 16/1/2017.

In the present case for assessment year 2012 – 13 the period of limitation for making an order of assessment under section 153 of the income tax act was expiring on 24 months from the assessment year i.e. on 31/3/2015. The extension of 12 months is granted as a reference is made under section 92CA of the act and therefore the limitation period was further extended from 31/3/2015 to 31/3/2016. The period of limitation expires a day prior to the date on which the limitation expires falls on 30/3/2016. The 60-day period counting the one day in the month of January 29 days of February being leap year and 31 days of March 2016, expires on 31/1/2016. Therefore, the outer time limit for passing the order of the learned transfer-pricing officer is up to 30/1/2016. In this case, the order of the learned transfer-pricing officer is passed on 31/1/2016. Therefore, it is barred by limitation as per the decision of the honourable madras High Court in case of Pfizer healthcare India private limited 433 ITR 28. Accordingly, the order of the learned transfer-pricing

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012 – 13 is allowed.

Now we come to appeal of the assessee in ITA number 75/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 – 14 filed against the assessment order passed under section 143 (3) read with section 144C (13) of the income tax act 1961 on

For this year, assessee has filed an additional ground raising identical issue raised in assessment year 2011 – 12 and 2012 – 13 stating that the assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer is barred by limitation as the transfer pricing officer has not passed the order within the time limit prescribed and therefore assessee is not an eligible assessee. Therefore, the whole assessment is time barred.

In this case, as assessee has entered into international transaction, the reference was made to the learned transfer-pricing officer to determine the arm's-length price. The learned transfer pricing officer passed an order under section 92CA (3) of the act on 1/11/2016. Based on this the draft assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 144C (1) of the act was passed on 31/12/2016. The assessee filed objection before the learned dispute resolution panel and directions were issued on 27/9/2017. Based on this the final assessment order under section 143 (3) was passed on 31/10/2017.

In this case, according to section 153 (1) the assessment order should have been passed within 21 months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. Therefore, the time limit for passing the

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed.