TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time limit to passing the final assessment order. This in our considered view would mean that the final assessment order passed by the AO is not in accordance with the directions of the DRP. As following the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd [ 2018 (12) TMI 1741 - ITAT BANGALORE ] we hold that the assessment framed in this case is quashed. We make it clear that, this order would not, in any way, stop the revenue from taking such steps as are available to it in law and the assessee also from contesting the action of the revenue in accordance with the law, if it so desires. It is ordered accordingly. - IT (TP) A No. 444/Bang/2022 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2022 - Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is approaching. 4. Though assessee raised several grounds pertaining to the TP adjustment, during the course of hearing he learned A.R. contended only the issue of the final assessment order of the AO not being in accordance with the directions of the DRP and therefore liable to be quashed. The learned A.R. further submitted that if this ground is adjudicated the rest of the grounds raised with regard to TP adjustment would become academic. 5. We heard the learned D.R.We notice that coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in IT(TP)A No.832/Bang/2017 dt.31.12.2018has considered the identical situation observed and held in paras 9 to 12 as under: 9. We have considered the ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd (13) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the conduct of the AO/TPO in passing the impugned final order of assessment is a clear case of defiance and disregard to the binding directions of the higher authorities, i.e, the DRP in the case on hand. In fact, in the impugned order dated 17/1/2014 there is not even a single reference to the DRPs directions issued us! 144C(5) of the Act vide order dated 30/12/2013. 3.3.2 In the factual and legal matrix of the case on hand, as discussed above, we are of the considered view that the impugned final order of assessment for asst. year 2008-09 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 92CA of the Act by the AO, in violation of the express mandatory provisions of sec. 144C(10) and (13) of the Act by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties. The law is well settled that a decision on concession of the counsel cannot be regarded as a precedent. Therefore, the decision cited by the learned DR does not support the case of the revenue. 11. In view of the conclusion that the assessment order is null and void, the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits of the Addition made do not require any Adjudication. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. In the present case on perusal of the DRP directions we notice that against the Ground of Objection No. 5.1 the DRP directed the TPO to consider for inclusion of Inteq Software Pvt Ltd., and for Ground of Objection No.5.3 which the assessee raised with regard to rejecting meth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 017-18 is computed as under: Computation of tota income for order u/s 143(3) 144B rws144C(13) of IT Act for AY 2017-18: Total income as admitted in the ITR Rs.3,00,10,320/- Add: Addition of TP adjustment under Section 92CA(3) of the Act as per the TPO order of Rs.1,39,87,510/- and DRP order as discussed in above paragraphs Rs.1,39,87,510/- Total assessed income U/s 143(3) 144B/a44 and read with section 144C (13) Rs.4,39,97,830/- 8. It is an admitted position that the directions of DRP as extracted above would result in the changes to the TP adjustment originally proposed by the TPO. The AO in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
