Held that the date for passing of the Transfer Pricing Officer\u2019s order was on or before October 31, 2019, but because of completion of the assessment under section\u00a0153(1), 21 months from the end of the assessment year plus 12 months extension considering the reference for transfer pricing had to be made, making the final date December 31, 2019. Nevertheless, the final order passed on November 1, 2019, was not within 60 days prior to the time-limit for the assessment order. Thus, the final assessment order was clearly barred by limitation. Accordingly, the Transfer Pricing Officer\u2019s order was invalid. Hence, the entire transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer became non est and liable to be quashed. In the instant case, there was no transfer pricing variation as a consequence of the order since the transfer pricing order was held to be time-barred, non est and void ab initio from the very date of its inception, that is, it entailed all the consequences of not having been passed at all. There remained no transfer pricing variation arising or remaining as a consequence thereof. As a result, the assessee could not be said to be an \u201celigible assessee\u201d under section\u00a0144C(15)(b)(ii). Accordingly, once the assessee became an ineligible assessee, the very foundation for proceeding to pass the draft assessment order did not survive, that is, the draft assessment order became legally invalid, and all consequential proceedings failed. Hence, the whole addition made in the final assessment order got quashed being barred by limitation.\u00a0 (AY. 2016-17)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-International Transactions-Transfer Pricing-Limitation-Assessment not completed within 21 months from end of Assessment Year plus extension of 12 months for transfer pricing reference-Assessment is barred by limitation-Order is invalid-Draft Assessment order-Eligible assessee-Order is quashed. [S.92CA, 114(15)(b)(ii), 153] <\/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-51023","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-dgX","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51023","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=51023"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51023\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":51024,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51023\/revisions\/51024"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51023"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}