2013 (1) TMI 921 - AT - Income Tax

Whether the order passed u/s 144C is valid - Held that - the assessee could have filed the objections there against before the DRP within 30 days of the receipt of the said order - while the assessee filed the objections before the DRP with delay of 13 days and that there was no liberty with the DRP to condone such delay - DRP has also not given any direction to pass the order as per the draft assessment order - instant appeal is not covered by the provisions of section 253(1)(d) of the Act - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on limitation aspect of Assessing Officer's order under section 144C of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Limitation Aspect:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the DRP, Chennai, challenging the validity of the Assessing Officer's order on the grounds of limitation. The contention raised was that the assessment order passed by the AO was beyond the time limit prescribed under section 144C(4) of the Act. The AR of the assessee highlighted the provisions of section 144C(4), emphasizing that if the AO does not receive objections from the assessee within the specified time frame, the assessment order must be passed within one month from the end of the month in which the objection filing period expires. The AR provided a detailed timeline of events to support the argument that the assessment order passed on 15 June 2012 was beyond the prescribed deadline, rendering it time-barred.

2. Arguments by CIT/DR and AR:
The CIT/DR contended that the AO's order was within the prescribed time limit as per section 144C(13) since it was passed after receiving directions from the DRP. The CIT/DR also mentioned that the assessee had the option to file an appeal before the CIT(A) after the expiry of the objection filing period. On the other hand, the AR argued that the AO should have completed the assessment within the timeframe specified in section 144C(3) and that the order passed on 15 June 2012 was indeed barred by limitation. The AR highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and raised concerns about the assessee's ability to appeal if the order was not time-bound.

3. Tribunal's Decision:
After considering the submissions and examining the lower authorities' orders, the Tribunal noted that the draft assessment order was served on the assessee, who failed to file objections within the stipulated period. The DRP declined to provide directions due to the delay in filing objections, and the AO subsequently passed the assessment order on 15 June 2012. The Tribunal analyzed the appealability of the order under section 253 of the Act and concluded that since the order was not passed in pursuance of DRP's directions, the appeal before the Tribunal was not maintainable. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that it was not covered under section 253(1)(d) and was not admissible.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision upheld the dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing that the order passed by the AO was not appealable directly before the Tribunal as it was not in pursuance of DRP's directions, thereby rendering the appeal not maintainable under section 253 of the Act.