2023 (4) TMI 474 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of order u/s 92CA (3) as beyond the prescribed time limit - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer for A.Y. 2011-12 has passed the order u/s 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 the order u/s 92CA (3) of the Act expires before 30 January 2015. Therefore, naturally the order passed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer is passed beyond the time limit.

As respectfully following the decision of Pfizer Healthcare India (P.) Ltd. [2021 (2) TMI 1152 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], we hold that the order passed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA (3) of the Act is passed beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, such order of TPO is not sustainable. Mere pendency of writ petition before the honourable Supreme Court does not help the case of the revenue.

If the order passed by TPO is held to be passed beyond prescribed time limit, the assessee does not remain an ' eligible assessee' as per section 144C(15) (b) and hence the extended time of 12 months is also not available ? - Even the regular assessment order passed by AO u/s 143(3) under challenge in this appeal also becomes barred by limitation. This is held by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in ATOS India Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (2) TMI 1112 - ITAT MUMBAI] we hold that the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with section 144C (13) of the Act dated 15th February, 2016 is also not sustainable. Assessee appeal allowed.