Held that for the assessment year\u00a02017-18\u00a0, while the final assessment order was passed in the name of an existing entity it was based on an invalid transfer pricing order, draft assessment order and directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel all passed in the name of a non-existing entity. Therefore, the final assessment order could not be sustained. For the assessment year\u00a02018-19\u00a0, the Transfer Pricing Officer in the first paragraph of his order under section\u00a092CA(3)\u00a0of the Act having mentioned the fact of amalgamation, there was no dispute that the fact of amalgamation was in the knowledge of the tax authorities. Though the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel and the final assessment order under section\u00a0144C(13)\u00a0of the Act were passed in the name of the assessee they were based on an invalid transfer pricing assessment order and invalid draft assessment order. Therefore all these additions were made on the basis of invalid orders being passed on a non-existing entity. That soon as the transfer pricing assessment order became invalid, the assessee failed to qualify as an eligible assessee under section\u00a0144C(15)\u00a0of the Act and the time-limit for passing of the final assessment order got reduced. On this ground also the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer became time-barred as well as invalid.(AY.2017-18, 2018-19)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 144C: Reference to dispute resolution panel-Limitation-Company amalgamated with assessee and ceasing to exist-Fact of amalgamation intimated to department-Order of Transfer Pricing Officer and draft assessment order issued in name of non-existing company-Invalid-Directions of Dispute Resolution Panel and final assessment passed in name of assessee-Not valid-Assessee ceasing to be eligible assessee and reduced time-limit for assessment-Assessment is barred by limitation .[ S.92CA (3) <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-44840","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-bFe","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44840","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44840"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44840\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":44841,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44840\/revisions\/44841"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44840"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44840"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44840"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}