On writ the Court held that despite recognising, confirming and affirming that the Transfer Pricing Officer’s order was not signed either physically or digitally on July 31, 2021, the Transfer Pricing Officer had signed the order physically only subsequently on August 12, 2021 and it was this manually or physically signed copy that was uploaded on the Income-tax Business Application portal on August 16, 2021, thereby leading to the sole inference that as on the last date of limitation, i. e., July 31, 2021, a legally valid Transfer Pricing Officer’s order had not been passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer. Thus, the order is quashed. It is mandatory for the Transfer Pricing Officer’s order to be digitally signed in terms of the Central Board of Direct Taxes circular dated February 12, 2018 ([2018] 401 ITR (St.) 176) read with section 282A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (AY. 2018-19)
Toyota Tausho India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (TP) (2024)468 ITR 29 (Karn)(HC)
S.143(3): Assessment-Transfer Pricing-Arm’s length price International Transactions-Limitation-Service of notice-Order of Transfer Pricing Officer is not signed digitally or manually before limitation Circular dated February 2018 (2018) 401 ITR (St) 176-Order is not valid.[S.92C, 119, 144C, Art. 226]
Leave a Reply