VIJAY TELEVISION (P.) LTD. Vs. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issues involved in both the writ petitions are inter-related and common arguments have been advanced by counsel for both sides, these writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) These two writ petitions have been filed by the assessee, challenging the orders passed by the second respondent. While the first writ petition being WP No. 1526 of 2014 has been filed challenging the assessment order dated 26.03.2013, the second writ petition in WP No. 1527 of 2014 has been filed challenging the Corrigendum issued by the second respondent on 15.04.2013.

(3.) According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the case of the petitioner company was taken up for scrutiny in respect of the assessment year 2009-2010 and as the petitioner company had entered into international transactions during such assessment year, the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (in short 'TPO') for determination of the arm's length price (hereinafter termed as ('ALP') of all such international transactions reported in Form 3CEB filed by the petitioner company. The TPO passed an order on 30.01.2013 and pursuant to the said order, the assessment officer viz., the second respondent, instead of passing a provisional order, has passed a final assessment order dated 26.03.2013 as contemplated under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "The Act''). This order, according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, is per se unsustainable under law as there is a mandatory direction enumerated under the Act that after an order was passed by the TPO, the Assessment Officer has to only pass a draft assessment order as required under Section 144C of the Act. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would further pointed out that the Assessment Officer, after realising the folly that a final order ought not to have been passed pursuant to the order passed by the TPO, issued a Corrigendum on 15.04.2013 modifying the final order of assessment passed on 26.03.2013 to be read as a draft assessment order purported to have been passed under Section 144C of the Act. On receipt of the corrigendum, the petitioner company filed their objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai, the first respondent herein on 26.04.2013 specifically questioning the validity of the corrigendum issued by the second respondent. It was specifically contended that the corrigendum issued by the second respondent is without jurisdiction and such an order was passed beyond the period of limitation.