Held that the additional ground raised by the assessee on the issue of the final assessment order being barred by limitation went to the root of the matter and was purely a legal issue not requiring any verification of facts. The additional ground is admitted .  That the time-limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act for the completion of assessment was December 31, 2019 for the assessment year 2016-17 considering the extended period of one year as per the third proviso thereto. Section 92CA(3A) mandates that the Transfer Pricing Officer pass an order at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153 of the Act expires. In order to reckon sixty days prior to that date, the date of December 31, 2019 should be ignored. Hence, sixty days prior to December 31, 2019 would fall on October 31, 2019, i. e., thirty days in December and thirty days in November. The Transfer Pricing Officer was bound to pass an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on or before October 31, 2019. Since the order was passed on November 1, 2019 it is  barred by limitation.

That once the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer was barred by limitation, the assessee would not be an ”eligible assessee” under section 144C(15)(b)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the extended time period provided by the third proviso to section 153 of the Act would not apply. The draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on December 27, 2019 would also be barred by limitation. It thus became an order void ab initio. Any subsequent proceedings emanating from the illegal and invalid order including the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel and the final assessment order also became void ab initio. The final assessment order is  bad in law.(AY. 2016-17)