Archroma International (India) Private Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax cannot act beyond the mandate of Section 144 (C) (13) and also contrary to the directions given by the Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP]. Further, assessment completed beyond prescribed time limit beyond section 114(C)(13) is time barred.
Facts-
By the present Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the Petitioner is challenging the inaction of the Respondents of not giving effect to the directions dated 19th March 2020 of the Dispute Resolution Panel and consequently not processing the refund claim of the Petitioner. The directions were given by the DRP to the 1st Respondent u/s. 144(C)(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The main issue raised in the petition is the effect of not completing the assessment within a period of one month from the end of the month in which the Assessing Officer receives such directions from the DRP u/s. 144(C) (5) of the Act. According to the Petitioner, if the Assessing Officer fails to complete the assessment within the time frame as prescribed by Section 144 (C) (13), the transfer pricing addition ought to be treated as non est on the ground that it becomes time barred.
