News shortcuts: From the Courts | Top Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | Professional Updates | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
From the Courts »
 Cleared Secured Services Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Kaish Impex Private Limited vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
 Publishers Cricket League, New Delhi. Vs. CIT(Exemptions). New Delhi.
 Dinesh Kumar Pundir C/o Sh. Dinesh Mohan, Advocate, 2-Anand Vihar, Lane No. 1, Circular Road, Muzaffarnagar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Saharanpur
 Rajasugumar Subramani vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
 PCIT vs. Pinaki D. Panani (Bombay High Court)
 Alodie Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle 2, Room No.363, 3rd Floor, E- 2, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi – 110 055.
 M/s. Nutek India Ltd., New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle – 18 (2), Delhi.
 P. P. Mahatme, POA Lorna Margaret Pinto vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  17 LPA-Opening Chief Manager Accounts-chartered Accountant - CA
  90 LPA-Opening Chartered Accountant / Finance Manager/ Financial Officers

M/s. Global One India Pvt. Ltd., DSO 601-603, 607-608, 6th Floor, DLF South Court, Saket, New Delhi 110 017 Vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi
December, 11th 2019

Referred Sections:
Section 143(3)
Section 144C of the Act
Section 41(1) of the Act
Section 80-IA(4) of the Act
Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Section 154 of the Income Tax Act
Section (2)
Sub-Section (10)

Referred Cases / Judgments:
CIT, Mysore vs. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. (1962) 46 ITR 649 (SC).
Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Circle 3(1)(1), Banalore [IT(TP)A No.832/Bang/2017]
Software Paradigms Infotech (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2018] 89 taxmann.com 339 (ITAT Bangalore)
July Systems & Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2018] IT(TP) A No.368/Bang/2016 (ITAT Bangalore)
ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie vs. Union of India [2016] 388 ITR 383

                                        1                      I.T.A No. 1980/Del/2014


                    IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                        DELHI BENCH: `C' NEW DELHI

              BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                                      AND
                 MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                         I.T.A NO. 1980/Del/2014
                       (Assessment Year : 2009-10)

     M/s. Global One India Pvt. Ltd.,   Vs   DCIT,
     DSO 601-603, 607-608,                   Circle ­ 12(1),
     6th Floor, DLF South Court,             New Delhi
     Saket, New Delhi ­ 110 017
     (PAN : AABCG 2558 B)
                                             (RESPONDENT)
     (APPELLANT)

                 Appellant by      Shri Kanchan Kaushal, C.A.
                 Respondent by     Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT - D.R.

                   Date of Hearing             03.12.2019
                   Date of Pronouncement       10.12.2019

                                    ORDER
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM


      This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.01.2014
passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2009-10.


2.    The Grounds of appeal are as under:-
 "That on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law:

 1. The assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (`Ld. AO')
    under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act persuant to the
    directions of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. DRP') is bad in law and
    void ab-initio.

 2. The final assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation
    as it has not been passed after taking into consideration the Learned
    Transfer Pricing Officer's ("Ld. TPO") order which has been passed
                                      2                      I.T.A No. 1980/Del/2014


  subsequent to the time limit prescribed for passing the final assessment
  order.
3 The Ld. AO has erred in proceeding to compute the total income of the
  assessee by making an addition of INR 80,746,954, without being in
  conformity with the Arms Length price as determined by the Ld. TPO
  pursuant to direction of Ld. DRP.
4. The Ld. AO (following the directions of the Ld. DRP) has grossly erred in
   making a disallowance of INR256,014,415/- by treating liability towards
   sundry creditorsas income chargeable to tax undersection 41(1) of the Act
   onerroneous assumptions and wrong observations of facts. While doing
   so, the Ld. AO had erred in:

       4.1      not providing relief to the Appellant of account of creditors
          worth INR       1,282,801 due to Power Grid Corporation India
          Limited in spite of directions from the Ld. DRP.
       4.2      re considering the amount of sundry creditors as INR
          441,635,541 by including expenses payable of INR 21,536,283 as
          against the amount of INR 420,099,258 appearing in the audited
          financial statements as on March 31, 2009.
       4.3      not providing any opportunity to the Appellant before
          making disallowance in respect of expenses payable amounting to
          INR 21,536,283.
       4.4        not providing relief of INR 211,150,180 relating to imports
          from entities other than group entities in spite of filing complete
          party-wise details of sundry creditors along with confirmation from
          Equant Network Systems Ltd., Ireland for taking over/owning up
          liability amounting to INR 396,771,305.
       4.5      invoking section 41(1) of the Act mechanically and without
          appreciating the fact that liability towards sundry creditors
          amounting to INR 211,150,180 pertains to purchase of capital
          assets which cannot be considered as a trading liability.
       4.6       not appreciating the fact that there is no cessation or
          remission of liability as the amount is still appearing as payable in
          the books of accounts of the appellant for the relevant previous
          year i.e. FY 2008-09.
       4.7      doubting the genuineness of creditors on the basis of
          unfounded assumptions and without bringing any material on
          record to doubt the genuineness.
       4.8       not seeking the independent confirmations from the creditors
          inspite of powers available to the Ld. AO under the provisions of
          the Act.
                                       3                      I.T.A No. 1980/Del/2014







5.   The Ld. AO (following the directions of the Ld. DRP) has erred in making
     disallowance of INR 201,134,971 by treating advances received from
     customers as income chargeable to tax under section 41(1) of the Act.
     While doing so:

        5.1       the Ld. AO has erred in invoking the provisions of section
           41(1) of the Act, in complete disregard of the fact that the appellant
           has not claimed any allowance or deduction in respect of Rs.
           201,134,971 in any preceding assessment year.

        5.2       the Ld. AO has further erred in making an unfounded
           assumption that the liability towards advances received from
           customers no longer exists, without bringing any cogent material
           on record.

        5.3       not seeking the independent confirmations from the creditors
           inspite of powers available to the Ld. AO under the provisions of
           the Act.

6. The Ld. AO (following the directions of the Ld. DRP) has erred in disallowing
   an amount of INR 10,932,472 on account of advances written off. While
   doing so, the Ld. AO and the Ld. DRP has failed to appreciate that this
   amount represents trade advances written off during normal course of
   business which is an allowable deduction in view of Supreme Court
   decision in the case of CIT, Mysore vs. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. (1962) 46 ITR
   649 (SC).

7. The Ld. AO has erred in not allowing deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the
   Act from the Gross Total Income (as assessed). While doing so:

        7.1      The Ld. AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the license
           required for providing internet-related services was obtained by
           the appellant from the Department of telecommunication("DOT")
           during the month of November 2003 and accordingly the deduction
           under section 80 IA (4) of the Act could be claimed by the appellant
           from the Assessment Year 2004-05.

        7.2      The Ld. AO has failed to appreciate the fact that since AY
           2004-05, the   appellant has been continuously incurring losses
           and accordingly no deduction under section 80 IA(4) of the Act was
           claimed.
                                        4                        I.T.A No. 1980/Del/2014


         7.3      The Ld.AO has failed to appreciate the fact that appellant
            reported losses in its current year's return of income and
            accordingly no deduction u/s 80 IA (4) of the Act could have been
            claimed.

         7.4         The Ld. AO has erred in stating that the appellant has not
            fulfilled the conditions required for claiming deduction u/s 80 IA (4)
            of the Act.

         7.5      The Ld. AO has further erred in stating that the appellant
            was given full opportunity to furnish the relevant details/
            explanations in this regard.

 8. That the Ld. AO has erred in not granting credit of taxes deducted at source
    to the extent of INR 449,488.

 9. The Ld. AO has erred in calculating interest u/s 234 B of the Act.

 10. The Ld. AO has erred in initiate penalty proceedings under section
    271(1)(c) of the Act.

 The above grounds are without prejudice to each other."


3.    The assessee company filed a revised return of income on 13.10.2010
declaring a loss of Rs.37,45,15,433/-. The case was selected for scrutiny
proceedings. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the matter was
referred by the Assessing Officer to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO
passed an order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 14.01.2013 thereby making addition
of Rs.8,07,46,954/- on account of adjustment to Arm's Length Price in respect
of provision of Telecom services on account of no case for a working capital
adjustment. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the draft Assessment
Order on 14.03.2013 after making the above Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.
8,07,46,954/-    and     other    corporate    tax    addition      amounting        to
Rs.70,80,40,200/-.


4.    Aggrieved by the draft assessment the assessee filed objections before
                                       5                     I.T.A No. 1980/Del/2014


the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide directions dated 19.12.2013
granted relief in respect of addition u/s 92CA of the Act on account of Arm's
Length Price determination of Rs. 8,07,46,954/-. The Assessing Officer vide
order dated 30.01.2014 passed final assessment order in absence of revised
TPO Order in respect of DRP directions to the TPO and assessed the income
without following the directions given by the DRP on TP adjustment and
assessed the total income at Rs.17,43,13,380/-. Subsequently, the Transfer
Pricing Officer vide order dated 21.02.2014 passed an order giving effect to
DRP directions and deleted the Transfer Pricing adjustment to the extent of Rs.
8,07,46,954/- as well as corporate tax additions/disallowance was reduced to
Rs. 46,80,81,858/-.


5.    The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the Assessment
Order for both Transfer Pricing issues as well as corporate tax issues on
04.04.2014 before us.


6.    Subsequently, rectification order u/s 154/143(3)/144C was passed on
15.07.2014 thereby deleting the entire Transfer Pricing adjustment and
retaining the corporate tax addition to Rs.46,80,81,858/-.


7.    The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order dated 30.01.2014
passed pursuant to the DRP direction is bad in law and void ab initio. The Ld.
AR submitted that the DRP has granted relief u/s 92CA on account of Arms'
Length Price determination and working capital adjustment. Despite the
directions of the DRP which should have been first compiled by the Transfer
Pricing Officer, the Assessing Officer did not wait for the order of the TPO and
passed the final Assessment Order thereby adding the Transfer Pricing
adjustment which was recomputed and held Nil by the DRP. The Revenue
authorities cannot overlap the statutory provisions, which are mandatory and
                                             6                     I.T.A No. 1980/Del/2014


has to be followed by the Revenue under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the
Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order itself is bad in law and the same
should be quashed at the threshold.


8.          The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed the order as
the assessment was getting time barred and Transfer Pricing Officer has not
given the order giving effect well within the stipulated time for final
assessment. The Ld. DR further submitted that after passing assessment
order, the Transfer Pricing Officer has given final effect to the DRP direction
and thereafter the Assessing Officer u/s 154 has rectified the original
assessment order well within time thereby deleting the entire Transfer Pricing
adjustment. Thus, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessment order is just and
proper, therefore, it should not be quashed.


9.          The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal:
     i.        Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Circle 3(1)(1),
               Banalore [IT(TP)A No.832/Bang/2017]
     ii.       Software Paradigms Infotech (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2018] 89
               taxmann.com 339 (ITAT Bangalore)
     iii.      July Systems & Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2018] IT(TP) A
               No.368/Bang/2016 (ITAT Bangalore)
     iv.       ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie vs. Union of India
               [2016] 388 ITR 383







10.         The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer is required to
pass the final assessment order in conformity with the DRP directions. In the
present case, DRP directed the Transfer Pricing Officer to give working capital
adjustment and recomputed ALP as per specified guidelines. However, instead
of incorporating the recomputed ALP, the Assessing Officer passed the final
assessment order identical to the draft Assessment Order on these count.
Therefore, the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not in
                                        7                     I.T.A No. 1980/Del/2014


conformity with the DRP direction. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that the said order
is null and void, therefore, the assessment order be quashed.


11.   We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials
available on record. Section 154 of the Income Tax Act is regarding the
rectification of mistake and the Assessing Officer on 15.07.2014 has rectified
the order thereby giving the final effect of the DRP directions. At the same time,
the Assessing Officer was suppose to complete the assessment under Section
143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act on the basis of the draft
assessment order if the assessee intimates to the Assessing Officer the
acceptance of the variation or no objection are received within the period
specified in sub section (2) of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act. In the
present case, the assessee filed objections before the DRP after passing the
draft assessment order. The DRP issued certain directions to the Transfer
Pricing Officer. The Assessing Officer was very well aware that the DRP has
given certain directions to the Transfer Pricing Officer and it is binding on the
Assessing Officer to follow every direction issued by the Dispute Resolution
Panel as per as per Section 144C(10) of the Act. Sub-Section (10) of Section
144C is not procedural but a mandatory requirement. If the Transfer Pricing
Officer has not passed any order, the Assessing Officer should have taken into
account the DRP's direction and would have taken cognizance in the final
assessment order, but the Assessing Officer choose not to follow the DRP's
direction. Subsequently, when the Transfer Pricing Officer passed the order
giving effect to DRP's directions vide order dated 21.02.2014, the Assessing
Officer on suo moto basis has rectified the assessment order u/s 154 thereby
giving effect to directions of the DRP. As per Section 143(3), the Assessing
Officer has to pass the assessment order within the prescribed period
otherwise the assessment becomes time barred. The Assessing Officer has
followed the statutory provisions of Section 143(3) thereby passing assessment
                                        8                    I.T.A No. 1980/Del/2014


order. But as per the binding section i.e. Section 144C(10) of the Act, the
mandatory provision was not followed by the Assessing Officer, thereby it is
binding on the Assessing Officer to follow the directions of the DRP. Therefore,
the assessment becomes null and void. As regards rectification, there is no
mistake committed on part of Assessing Officer, in fact Assessing Officer was
very well aware that the DRP has given certain directions so it could not be
termed that there is a mistake apparent on record. When the Assessing Officer
has deliberately chosen not to follow a binding provisions u/s 144C of the Act
while passing the final assessment order, the Assessment Order, itself becomes
null and void. The case laws referred by the Ld. AR are categorically
highlighting the same position of law. The submissions of the Ld. DR that after
passing assessment order, the Transfer Pricing Officer has given final effect to
the DRP direction and thereafter the Assessing Officer u/s 154 has rectified
the original assessment order well within time thereby deleting the entire
Transfer Pricing adjustment, does not hold the test of legal sanctity as per the
provisions of Section 144C(10) of the Act. Thus, assessment order itself is
quashed. Therefore, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the Assessee's appeal are allowed.


12.   As regards to Ground Nos. 3 to 10, the same are on merits. Since the
Assessment Order itself becomes null and void, the other issues does not
survive.


13.   In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on the 10 th day of December, 2019.
           Sd/-                                                      Sd/-

     (N. K. BILLAIYA)                                 (SUCHITRA KAMBLE)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                      JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated:     10/12/2019
Priti Yadav, Sr. PS *
                     9           I.T.A No. 1980/Del/2014




Copy forwarded to:

1.   Appellant
2.   Respondent
3.   CIT
4.   CIT(Appeals)
5.   DR: ITAT




                         ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                           ITAT NEW DELHI

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2020 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting