TIONG WOON PROJECT & CONTRACTING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 419/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 March 2017AY 2011-125 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had admittedly filed objections with the Assessing Officer within the time frame. The delay in filing with the DRP was due to the shifting of its office premises and did not render the assessment order time-barred.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed objections to the draft assessment order belatedly with the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The assessee argued that the assessment order was time-barred due to the delay in filing objections with the DRP.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order is time-barred due to a delay in filing objections with the DRP, and whether the DRP's directions and the Assessing Officer's order are valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH

For Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Hearing: 21.12.2017Pronounced: 09.03.2017

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Assessing Officer, consequent to the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel.

2.

Shri K. Meenatchi Sundaram, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the order of assessment is time barred.

Referring to Section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the Ld. representative submitted that the Assessing Officer has to pass the assessment order on or before 31.05.2015.

Since the objection was not filed within the time frame, according to the Ld. representative, the DRP ought not to have issued any direction at all. The Dispute Resolution Panel has no power to condone the delay in filing he objection, consequently the direction given under Section 144C(5) of the Act cannot be given effect to.

The Ld. representative placed his reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in ST Microelectronics (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 384 ITR 550 and also the decision of Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in Envestnet Asset Management (India) (p.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 67 SOT 217. The Ld. representative further submitted that the objection to the draft assessment order was filed belatedly. In fact, initially, the objection was forwarded to DRP by courier on 28.03.2015. However, the same was returned to the assessee on the ground that no such addressee. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee visited the Dispute Resolution Panel office in person on 06.04.2015 and it was informed that the office was closed and it was operating from Mumbai. Accordingly, the objection was filed in Mumbai.

3.

We have heard Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The assessee claims that the objection was filed before the DRP belatedly. However, the objection was admittedly filed before the Assessing Officer within the time frame. We have carefully gone through the provisions of Section 144C of the Act. Section 144C(2) of the Act provides that on receipt of the draft assessment order, the assessee has to file objection within 30 days with (i) the Dispute Resolution Panel; and (ii) the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the assessee to file objection before both the Dispute Resolution Panel as well as the Assessing Officer. In this case, admittedly, the assessee filed objection before the Assessing Officer and there was delay in filing the objection before the DRP, who was operating from Mumbai. Hence, the objection was filed before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer being a public authority, has to forward a copy of the objection along with other records, to Dispute Resolution Panel. Therefore, merely because there was delay in filing objection due to shifting of office premises of the Dispute Resolution Panel that cannot be a reason to hold that the order passed by the Assessing Officer consequent to the direction of DRP is barred by limitation.

4.

We have carefully gone through the direction of Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel has taken care of objection filed by the assessee. The assessee was also given an opportunity to present its case before Dispute Resolution Panel.

Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel and the Assessing Officer are well within the period of limitation, therefore, there is no infirmity in the direction of DRP as well as the Assessing Officer.

5.

Now coming to the merit, the DRP placed its reliance on the decision of Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in Intel Asia Electronics Inc. v. ADIT (2011) 30 CCH 44 to adopt the Net Book Value Plus expenses. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that in view of the decision of Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal, Net Book Value Plus expenses can be adopted for the purpose of adjustment.

Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the direction of the DRP and the same is confirmed.

6.

The DRP has adopted CUP method by following the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in Lintas India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [27 taxmann.com 300]. In view of this, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 9th March, 2017 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →