9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces to its Associated Enterprise (AE). The assessee filed return of income for AY 2017- 18 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,00,10,320/-. The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) since the assessee had international transactions to determine the arm's length price (ALP). The TPO made an adjustment of Rs.1,39,87,510/-. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the DRP. 3. The DRP in the order dated 17.01.2022 upheld the order of the TPO dated 28.01.2021 on all grounds of objections raised by the assessee except Ground of Objections No. 5.1 and 5.3 in which DRP gave direction to the TPO for certain inclusion/exclusion and to re-compute the TP adjustment accordingly. However, in the final order of assessment the AO retaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act in conformity with the directions issued by the DRP u/s 144C(5) of the Act, which are binding on him as per section 144C(10) thereof and within the time prescribed u/s 144C(13) of the Act. We find that instead of passing the final order of assessment as required by law, the AO passed the impugned final order of assessment dated 17/1/2014 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 92CA of the Act; which, as contended by the id AR, is identical to the draft order of assessment passed on 14/3/2013 by only incorporating this TPOs proposals and , thereby evidently giving the DRPs mandatory directions issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act a complete go-by. In our view, it is factually established that the AO in the final order of assessment dated 17/1/2014 has not given ef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing the aforesaid view of the Tribunal, we quash the impugned order of assessment. Since the impugned order of assessment is quashed on the ground that the same is not in conformity with the provisions of section 144C of the Act and further on the ground that the time for passing the final order of assessment is barred by time, we are of the View that the other issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal and the grounds raised by the revenue in its appeal does not require any consideration. As far as the decision cited by the learned DR in the case of H & M Hennes&Mauritz India (P) Ltd. (supra) is concerned, we find that in the said decision, the counsel for the Assessee has in para 3.8 of the said order prayed for setting asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment order by observing that: - "6. The assessee filed its objections before the DRP and DRP has passed the order giving directions u/s 144C(5) of IT Act, which is received on 02.02.2022. The DRP in its order upheld the order of TPO dated 28-01- 2021 on all 11 ground of objection raised by the assessee except ground no. 5.1, 5.3 on which DRP directed TPO to consider the referred companies for comparable. In this regard, the letter to TPO was issued requesting for consequential order passed, if any, to DRP order, but till dated (29-3-2022), no reply has been received. In view of the above, as the TB date for passing order approached, the order u/s 143(3) rws 144(c) of IT Act is passed as under: 7. Thus, the order is passed u/s 143(3) 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
