9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenging the order dated 30.03.2022 passed in IT(TP)A No. 699/BANG/2016 and in IT(TP)A No. 548/Bang/2016, respectively by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore [Tribunal]. 2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present appeal are that the respondent/assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of solar cells, photovoltaic modules and systems. The assessee filed its return of income for the financial year 2010-11 relevant to Assessment Year [AY] 2011-12 on 24.9.2011. 3. The Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] passed an order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act on 30.01.2015, proposing an adjustment to international transactions entered by the assessee. On receipt of the order of the TPO, the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Calculating 60 days prior to the said date, the Tribunal held that the order under Section 92CA (3) ought to have been passed on or before 28.1.2015. However, the order having been passed on 30.1.2015 and the same having been passed beyond the time prescribed, allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Being aggrieved, the present appeals are filed. 6. Sri E.I Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue contends that the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous and perverse and the said appeals are required to be admitted to consider the substantial questions of law framed in the memorandum of appeal. 7. Per contra, Sri Dharpan Kirpalan, learned counsel appearing for Sri Balram R. Rao, learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed was on or before 28.1.2015. Hence, the order Section 92CA (3) of the Act having been passed on 30.1.2015, the Tribunal accepted the contention put forth by the assessee and passed the impugned order. 10. It is further forthcoming that before the Tribunal the contention of the revenue was that the delay was a curable defect and that although the order was passed on 28.1.2015, the same was dated as 30.1.2015. While noticing the said contention the Tribunal by relying on the judgment of the Madras High in the case of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Private Ltd., and also by noticing that the contention put forth by the revenue that the order was passed on 28.1.2015, but dated 30.1.2015 is not an irregularity of procedure rejected the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mination is not in time, it cannot be relied upon by the assessing officer while concluding the assessment proceedings. 39. Upon consideration of the judgments and the scheme of the Act, we are of the opinion that the word "may" used therein has to be construed as "shall" and the time period fixed therein has to be scrupulously followed. The word "may" is used there to imply that an order can be passed any day before 60 days and it is not that the order must be made on the day before the 60th day. The impact of the proviso to the sub-section clarifies the mandatory nature of the time schedule. The word "may" cannot be interpreted to say that the legislature never wanted the authority to pass an order within 60 days and it gave a discreti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
