Case Law Details
Case Name : IHG IT Services (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Related Assessment Year : 2010-11
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Delhi
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
IHG IT Services (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has nullified the assessment order issued against IHG IT Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 2010-11. The Tribunal’s decision, pronounced on November 30, 2015, hinged on a critical procedural flaw: the final assessment order was passed beyond the statutory time limit stipulated under Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This ruling underscores the imperative for tax authorities to adhere strictly to prescribed timelines in assessment proceedings.
Background of ...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Author Bio
Having read the ITAT order and on giving a careful thought to the decision and the facts as applied by the ITAT, the question that comes to mind is whether the facts are applied correctly ??
The facts as stated in the order are:
1. DRP directions were issued on 24.09.2014.
2. Order u/s 127 transferring the jurisdiction from Delhi AO to Gurgaon AO was issued on 25.09.2014.
3. Delhi AO informed the Gurgaon AO about issuance of DRP directions by letter dated 28.10.2015. DRP directions were not enclosed with this letter by Delhi AO.
4. It has to be borne in mind that Delhi AO was no more AO of the assessee from 25.09.2015 onwards since passing of 127 order.
5. Even if the Delhi officer received the DRP directions before 28.10.2015, he was not the AO. So the directions were received by an officer who had no locus standi in the matter any more.
6. The Gurgaon AO received the DRP order only in January 2016 and he also passed the order in January 2016.
ITAT has held this case to be barred by limitations on the basis of receipt of DRP order by an officer who had no locus in the matter since 25.09.2015.
This raises the question in my mind – whether the DRP order can be said to have been received by the AO having jurisdiction over the matter on or before 28.10.2015??