Louis Dreyfus Co. India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Central Processing Centre 2023 TaxPub(DT) 7019 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Shell India Markets (P) Ltd. v. Addl./Jt./Dy./ACIT/ITO 2022 TaxPub(DT) 1666 (Bom-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1201 (Del-HC) IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT YASHWANT VARMA & PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, JJ. Louis Dreyfus Co. India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT W.P.(C) No. 15381/2022 30 January, 2024 Petitioner by: S. Vasudevan, Karanjot Singh & Snehal Ranjan Shukla, Advs. Respondent by: Shailender Singh, Anuja Pethia, Dachhita Shahi & Rishabh Nigam, Advs. ORDER 1. This writ petition has been preferred seeking quashing of the impugned assessment Order dated 24-8-2022 passed by the jurisdictional assessing officer (AO), Circle-13(1), New Delhi-the first respondent herein issued under section 143(3) read with section 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Act for the assessment year 2018-19. The writ petitioner has also sought quashing of the impugned penalty show cause notice for the said assessment year issued under section 270A read with section 274 of the Act and the quashing of the impugned directions dated 20-6-2022 issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel under section 144C(5) of the Act. 2. The primary challenge advanced by the writ petitioner to the aforenoted assessment order is on the ground of it being contrary to the provisions contained in section 144C(13) of the Act. The petitioner questions the jurisdiction assumed by the respondents in framing that order of assessment beyond the mandatory time frame as embodied in sub-section (13) of the aforenoted provision. The petitioner contends that once a direction is framed by the DRP, it is incumbent upon the assessing officer to frame an order of assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which such a direction is received. 3. According to the writ petitioner, the DRP framed its Order dated 20-6-2022 in accordance with section 144C(5) of the Act and which came to be uploaded on the official portal in terms of the E-assessment scheme, 2019 on 24-6-2022. According to learned counsel, the period of one month as contemplated in section 144C(13) of the Act would thus have to be computed from 30-6-2022, being the last day of the month and which constitutes the starting point for computation of 30 days. Viewed in that light, learned counsel submitted that an order of assessment could have been framed only up to 31-7-2022. 4. However, and undisputedly, the order of assessment came to be made on 24-8-2022. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner assails that assessment order and the consequential proceedings initiated in terms thereof. For the purposes of disposal of the instant writ petition, we deem it apposite to take note of the following salient facts. 5. On 26-7-2021, the Transfer Pricing Officer the third respondent, while examining the return as submitted by the petitioner, proposed adjustments amounting to Rs. 25,82,66,995 to the income of the petitioner. Pursuant to that order, a draft assessment order came to be drawn up in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under section 144C of the Act. That order reiterated the adjustments that were proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner filed objections before the DRP the second respondent herein on 22-10-2021. Those objections were remitted to the DRP in terms of section 144C(5) of the Act. The DRP ultimately passed an order on 20-6-2022 affirming the aforenoted transfer price additions made to the income of the petitioner. The said directive of the DRP is stated to have been uploaded on the Income Tax Business Application portal on 24-6-2022. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1201 (Del-HC)

IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT

YASHWANT VARMA & PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, JJ.

Louis Dreyfus Co. India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

W.P.(C) No. 15381/2022

30 January, 2024

Petitioner by: S. Vasudevan, Karanjot Singh & Snehal Ranjan Shukla, Advs.

Respondent by: Shailender Singh, Anuja Pethia, Dachhita Shahi & Rishabh Nigam, Advs.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been preferred seeking quashing of the impugned assessment Order dated 24-8-2022 passed by the jurisdictional assessing officer (AO), Circle-13(1), New Delhi-the first respondent herein issued under section 143(3) read with section 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Act for the assessment year 2018-19. The writ petitioner has also sought quashing of the impugned penalty show cause notice for the said assessment year issued under section 270A read with section 274 of the Act and the quashing of the impugned directions dated 20-6-2022 issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel under section 144C(5) of the Act.

2. The primary challenge advanced by the writ petitioner to the aforenoted assessment order is on the ground of it being contrary to the provisions contained in section 144C(13) of the Act. The petitioner questions the jurisdiction assumed by the respondents in framing that order of assessment beyond the mandatory time frame as embodied in sub-section (13) of the aforenoted provision. The petitioner contends that once a direction is framed by the DRP, it is incumbent upon the assessing officer to frame an order of assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which such a direction is received.

3. According to the writ petitioner, the DRP framed its Order dated 20-6-2022 in accordance with section 144C(5) of the Act and which came to be uploaded on the official portal in terms of the E-assessment scheme, 2019 on 24-6-2022. According to learned counsel, the period of one month as contemplated in section 144C(13) of the Act would thus have to be computed from 30-6-2022, being the last day of the month and which constitutes the starting point for computation of 30 days. Viewed in that light, learned counsel submitted that an order of assessment could have been framed only up to 31-7-2022.

4. However, and undisputedly, the order of assessment came to be made on 24-8-2022. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner assails that assessment order and the consequential proceedings initiated in terms thereof. For the purposes of disposal of the instant writ petition, we deem it apposite to take note of the following salient facts.

5. On 26-7-2021, the Transfer Pricing Officer the third respondent, while examining the return as submitted by the petitioner, proposed adjustments amounting to Rs. 25,82,66,995 to the income of the petitioner. Pursuant to that order, a draft assessment order came to be drawn up in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under section 144C of the Act. That order reiterated the adjustments that were proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner filed objections before the DRP the second respondent herein on 22-10-2021. Those objections were remitted to the DRP in terms of section 144C(5) of the Act. The DRP ultimately passed an order on 20-6-2022 affirming the aforenoted transfer price additions made to the income of the petitioner. The said directive of the DRP is stated to have been uploaded on the Income Tax Business Application portal on 24-6-2022.