GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was passed without any reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and was made beyond the prescribed time limit of two years from the end of the assessment year, it was barred by limitation and thus void ab initio.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed its return of income, and the assessment order was passed on 27.02.2014. The assessee raised an additional ground of appeal arguing that the assessment order was barred by limitation under Section 153 of the Income-tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was barred by limitation under Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, considering it was passed beyond the prescribed time limit and without reference to the TPO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI
Before: MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA & SHRI R.K.PANDA
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: Both appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are against order of CIT(A)-44, New Delhi, dated 19.01.2016 relating to assessment year 2010-11 passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”).
Both appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
The assessee has filed additional ground of appeal and has pointed out that the said additional ground of appeal is purely legal in nature and the same do not require any adjudication on merits. Hence, the same may be admitted for adjudication. The additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under:-
“That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Order dated 27.02.2014 having been passed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) after two years from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e. Assessment Year 2010-11, is barred by limitation prescribed under section 153 of the Act and, therefore, a nullity and void ab initio.”
& 3510/Del/2016 Assessment Year-2010-11
The additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee is against the time period within which the assessment order had to be passed and does not require any adjudication on facts; hence, the same is admitted for adjudication.
Briefly in the facts of the case the assessee had filed return of income on 30.09.2010. Thereafter, revised return of income was filed on 30.03.2012. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 09.04.2012. In response thereto, the Ld.AR for the assessee attended the assessment proceedings and the assessment order was passed on 27.02.2014, under which the addition was made on account of transfer pricing issues. Though, the assessee had raised several grounds of appeal against the transfer pricing adjustment made, but has also raised the preliminary issues to the effect that the assessment order passed on 27.02.2014 is barred by limitation u/s 153 of the Act. Hence, the said order is both nullity and void ab initio.
The Ld.AR for the assessee in this regard pointed out that where the addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on account of transfer pricing issues, wherein no reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (in short “TPO”), but the addition was made by the Assessing Officer himself, then as per section 153 of the Act, such order has to be passed within two years from the end of the assessment year i.e. 31.03.2013. It was further pointed out by the Ld.AR that the assessment order in the present case has been passed on 27.02.2014, which is time barred. Such a & 3510/Del/2016 Assessment Year-2010-11 proposition has been raised on the ground that no reference was made to the TPO or any order of the TPO was passed in the case of the assessee and hence, the provision of 3rd proviso to section 153 of the Act were not attracted.
The Ld. DR for the Revenue on verification, admitted that neither reference was made to the TPO nor any order was passed by the TPO in the present case.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which is raised by way of additional ground of appeal is against the assessment order passed in the case by the Assessing Officer, wherein though additions were made under the transfer pricing provisions but without any reference to the TPO; then the question which arises is whether the present assessment order is barred by limitation. The year under appeal is Assessment Year 2010-11 and as per section 153 of the Act, the assessment in the case had to be completed by 31.03.2013.
However, in case the Assessing Officer makes reference to the TPO, who in turn makes upward adjustment on account of the arms length price of the international transaction, if any, then as per the 3rd Proviso to section 153 of the Act, the Assessing Officer gets further time of one year to pass the assessment order, after receipt of the reference order from the TPO. Such is the proposition as per the 3rd Proviso to section 153 of the Act, prior to its amendment. In the present set of facts, the Assessing Officer suo motto made the aforesaid transfer pricing adjustment and had neither made any & 3510/Del/2016 Assessment Year-2010-11 reference to the TPO nor received any order from the TPO, then it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to pass an assessment order within the period of two years from the end of the Assessment Year i.e. by 31.03.2013. It is not disputed that neither reference was made to the TPO nor any report was received from the TPO. Accordingly, we hold that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 27.02.2014 is barred by limitation prescribed u/s 153 of the Act. Hence, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both nullity and void ab initio. We thus, allow additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee. Since the assessment order has been held to be nullity, we do not go into the merits of the addition made and also the appeal of the Revenue do not survive as the assessment order is held to be nullity and void ab initio. Thus, the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed and cross appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18th day of November, 2019.
More judgments on Section 153
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3228/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Zabuben Mepabhai Bharvad, Ahmedabad vs The PCIT - 1, AhmedabadITA 1233/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 3453/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026