TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ya, Advocate For The Respondent : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) ORDER Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the assessment order passed by the DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Bengaluru, dated 18/02/2016 u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Briefly facts of the case are as under: The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of herbal pharmaceutical products, consumer/personal care products and animal health care products. The return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed declaring income of ₹ 38,58,85,630/-. The cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the AO shall pass assessment order within one month from the end of the month in which directions from the DRP are received by the AO. In the present case, the directions of the DRP were received by the AO on 29/12/2015 as stated by him vide para.3.4 of his assessment order. Therefore, the AO was required to pass final assessment order on or before 31/01/2016 whereas in the present case, final assessment order was passed by the AO on 18/2/2016 which is clearly beyond the period prescribed under the provisions of sub-section (13) of section 144C of the Act. Then the issue that requires adjudication is what is the effect of the assessment order, passed by the AO under sub- section (13) of section 144C of the Act, beyond the period pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India [2011] 11 taxmann.com 204 has held that limitation provisions are only procedural in nature unless they go to the root of the matter, it does not create any substantive right. The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rain Cements Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2017] 392 ITR 253 held that the provisions of sub- section (12) of section 144C of the Act do not go to root of jurisdiction on DRP to pass the order. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under: 40. But in this case, sub-section (12) of Section 144C, on the face of it, appears to pose an obstacle. Under sub-section (12), no direction can be issued by the DRP under sub-section (5), after the expiry of nine months from the end of the month in which the draft assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 144C does not appear to be one that goes to the root of the jurisdictional issue. The reasons are two-fold. The first is that as per the scheme of Section 144C, the DRP is constituted as an alternative mechanism for resolution of disputes. Therefore it is conferred with the powers of a Civil Court to take evidence, hold an enquiry and even correct mistakes or errors suo motu or on an application of either of the parties. The intention behind the insertion of Section 144C is to provide a mechanism for speedy resolution of disputes and to ensure finality to litigation. Therefore the bar under sub-section (12) cannot be treated as one going to the root of the matter. 44. The second reason as to why we opine so is that the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
