9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR submits that as per the provisions of Section 144C(13) of the Act, the Assessing Officer (AO) has to pass final assessment order within one month from the end of the month in which Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions are received. In the instant case, the DRP directions u/s. 144C(5) of the Act are dated 18.03.2021, hence the due date to pass the final assessment order as per Section 144C(13) of the Act was 30.04.2021. Whereas, the final assessment order was passed by the AO on 30.09.2021. Hence, the assessment order was passed much beyond the period of limitation as specified in Section 144C(13) of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that the case of assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant CIT reported as 139 taxmann.com 335/443 ITR 366. The ld. AR further submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the aforesaid case has also considered various circulars and notifications issued by the CBDT extending the time period for passing orders in the wake of unprecedented situation caused due to Covid-19 pandemic. The Hon'ble Court held that relaxation of lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 or section 153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. 7. A bare perusal of Section 144C(13) would show that the AO is duty bound to pass final assessment order within a period of one month from the end of the month in which the DRP directions are received. As mentioned in the above table the DRP passed directions on 18.03.2021. As per the stamp on the directions, the same were received by the Assessing Officer on 25.03.2021. This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue. In terms of the provisions of Section 144C(13) of the Act, the AO was required to pass final assessment order on or before 30.04.2021. Whereas, in the instant case, the order was passed much beyond the period of limitation and hence, is without jurisdiction. 7.1 Now, the question arises that since the entire proceedings before the DRP and thereafter were carried out during Covid-19 pandemic the relaxation allowed by the Special Act TOLA would app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imit specified in the Act falls for completion of such action, 30th April 2021 shall be the end date to which the time-limit for completion of such action shall stand extended. The notification, therefore, provides that if the time-limit to complete the assessment under Section 144C(13) was expiring on any date upto 31st March 2021, the said date for completion was extended upto 30th April 2021. Since in this case, the time-limit for completion of assessment was not expiring as of 31st March 2021, in our view, Notification No.20/2021 is not applicable. 17. Coming to the applicability of Notification No.38/2021 issued on 27th April 2021, Clause (A) of the notification provides that where the specified Act is the Income-tax Act, and the completion of any action referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, relates to passing of an order under Section 144C(13) of the Act and the time-limit for completion of such action expires on 30th April 2021 "due to its extension by earlier notifications", such time-limit shall further stand extended to 30th June 2021. The expiry of time-limit for completion of assessment or for passing the order in petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il 2021 and hence, the provisions of Relaxation Act will not be applicable to petitioner's case at all. 21. As far as Mr. Suresh Kumar's submission that the Notification No.74/2021 dated 25th June 2021, to give purposive interpretation the word 'and' used should be read as 'or' as noted in paragraph No.12(d) above, statutes have to be construed in such a way that every word has a place and everything is in its place. If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, the courts are bound to construe them in the ordinary sense in their judgments. The words of statute are to be first understood in the natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The reason for doing so is to give effect to the intention of the Parliament. Therefore, by reading the notification as it stands, and not as suggested by Mr. Suresh Kumar, neither does it lead to any absurdity nor does it suggest anything to the contrary. Therefore, we cannot and we should not read the word 'and' as 'or'. 22. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
