TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lunkhe, Sr.AR ORDER Per Padmavathy S (AM): This appeal is against the final order of assessment passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (in short, the AO ) under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act (in short, the Act ) dated 29/01/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18. Besides raising various grounds contending the issues on merits, the assessee raised additional grounds contending the legality of the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The additional grounds read as follows:- Ground No. 17 On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated 29 January 2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ('the learned AO') under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is barred by limitation in terms of the timeline prescribed under the provisions of section 153(1) of the Act, and hence, the said assessment order is void-ab-initio, bad in law and liable to be quashed. Ground No. 18 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 30 January 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 153 of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted the following chart with regarding to the various relevant dates: S. No. Particulars Relevant date / period 1 Assessment year involved 2017-18 2 Period of limitation for making an order of assessment as per section 153(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( the Act 31/12/2019 (i.e. 21 months from the end of the Assessment Year) 3 Extension of period of limitation in case reference is made u/ 92CA 12 months 4 Therefore, assessment proceedings should be completed on / or before 31-12-2020 5 Extension of 3 months to pass the order as per the CBDT notification dated 24 June 2020 31-03-2021 6 Date prior to the date on which period of limitation expired (stated in Sr.No.5 above) 30-03-2021 7 Sixty days period expired on [March = 30 days (ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 It is submitted that the legislature uses different words such as from , to , before , after , prior , within , not later than , not thereafter , not less than , at least for computation of days. The principle of excluding the date of starting day and the inclusion of ending day are provided in Sec. 12 of the limitation Act and in Sec, 9 of the General Clauses Act and a provision cannot be interpreted ignoring the same. 5 As per Sec. 9 of the General Clauses Act, in computation of the time limit, the day referred to as from has to be excluded and the day referred to as to has to be included. In the case on hand, the date of the order dated 30.01.2021 was taken as starting point of limitation and 60 days was computed from 30.01.2021 and rightly the same has to be excluded and the last day31.03.2021 has to be included and thus the order dated 30.01.2021 is rightly passed as per See.91CA(3A). 6. When the period is marked by terminus a quo and terminus ad quern, the canon of interpretation envisaged and Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 require to exclude the first day and to include the last day. 7. Thus the exclusion of both the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... using, the word shall in Sec.92CA(4). Hence, in view of the context and background of the provisions, the word may* should not and cannot be read as shall, 13. It is pertinent to mention that SLP has been filed and it is admitted vide SLP (Civil) Diary No(s)-29289/2022 in the case of M/s Pfizer Healthcare Industries Pvt. Ltd, against the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court. Hence, the issue has not reached finality. Therefore, it is requested not to admit the additional grounds of appeal. 14. In view of the above discussion, it is humbly prayed that the additional ground may be rejected and case be heard on merit. 8. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the co-ordinate bench in the case of DSV Air Sea Pvt Ltd (supra) has considered a similar issue and held that 12. In order to determine if the order dated 31-1-2021 passed by Ld. TPO is barred by limitation as contended by Ld. A.R. for the taxpayer we would advert to the provisions contained under section 92CA(3) read with section 153 of the Act. 13. Undisputedly, sub-section (3A) to section 92CA has been inserted w.e.f. 1-6- 2007 provide time limit for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . A.R. for the taxpayer computed the limitation period under section 92CA(3A) for the year under consideration in tabulated form as under: Financial Year 2016-17 Assessment Year 2017-18 End of Assessment Year 31-03-2018 Due date for completion of assessment under section 153(1) i.e. 21 months from the end of A.Y. 31.12.2019 Extension of 12 months in case of transfer pricing as per Section 153(4) of the Act 31-12-2020 Extension of 3 months to pass the order under section 92CA(3A) i.e. 60 days prior to the date prescribed under section 153 - Date on which limitation expires under section 153 i.e. 31-03-2021 1 day Less: Remaining days of March 30 days Less: Remaining days of February 28 days Less: Remaining days of January 2 days Due date for passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
