Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (11) TMI 1320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... his stage he is only pressing ground No. 1 of the appeal, challenging validity of order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act dated 31/10/2019 passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that the said order has been passed beyond the period of limitation as specified u/s. 153 r.w.s. 92CA(3) of the Act. Referring to the order he submitted that in cause title though the date of the order has been mentioned as 31/10/2019 but the said order has been signed by the TPO on 01/11/2019. Pointing at note at the bottom of page-1 of the order, he submitted that it has been specifically mentioned in the Note: "If digitally signed, the date of digital signature may be taken as date of document." Since, the or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... days Due date for passing the TPO order under section 92CA(3) i.e. 61st day from 31 December 2019. 31-Oct-19 Date of passing the TP order under Section 92CA(3) 01-Nov-19. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Suman Jeet Agarwal vs. ITO, 143 taxmann.com 11 (Delhi); (ii) Pfizer Healthcare India (P.) Ltd. vs. JCIT, 433 ITR 28(Madras); (iii) Transporter Industry International Gmbh vs. DCIT(IT) ITA No. 1240/Mum/2021 decided on 31/05/2023; (iv) LG Soft India Private Limited vs. DCIT, [IT(TP)A No. 263/Bang/2022 decided on 30/05/2023(Bang). The ld. Authorized Representative submitted that, since the order passed by the TPO u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act is barred by limitation, the subsequent final .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t would be relevant to refer to the note at bottom of page 1 of the order, the same reads as under: "Note: If digitally signed, the date of digital signature may be taken as date of document." The said note itself makes it unambiguous that the date of signature is the date of order. The provisions of section 282A of the Act read with Rule 127A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 require notices or other documents to be signed before they are issued by the Income Tax Authority. Board Instruction No. 1/2018 dated 12/2/2018 further makes it clear that all departmental orders/communications/notices issued to the assessee through 'e- Proceedings' are to be signed digitally by the Assessing Officer. Considering the above provisions/instructions, we a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rred to in section 153 for making the order of assessment or reassessment as the case may be, expires. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Pfizer Healthcare India (P) Ltd. (supra) has explained the manner of computation of limitation for passing of the order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act. The relevant extract of the observations by the Hon'ble High Court reads as under: "30. Now, coming to the question of how the 60 day period is to be computed, the critical question would be whether the period of 60 days would be computed including the 31st of December or excluding it. Section 153 states that no order of assessment shall be made at any time after the expiry of 21 months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the complete period of 60 days as mandated under sub-section (3A) of section 92CA of the Act are not available with the Assessing Officer for making the assessment order. Hence, the order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act is time barred by 1 (one) day. 7. In Transporter Industry International Gmbh (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench under similar set of facts after considering the decision in the case of Pfizer Healthcare India (P) Ltd.(supra) and the decision of Division Bench in the case of DCIT(TP) vs. Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd., 444 ITR 636 (Mad) held that the order passed by the TPO on 01/11/2019 is beyond the limitation period prescribed under the Act, hence, bad in law. 8. Thus, in light of the provisions of section 92CA(3A) r.w.s. 153 of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates