M/S BAILEY HYDROPOWER PVT LTD NOW KNOWN AS WAYNE BURT PETROCHEMICALS (P) LTD, SRIPERUMBUDUR V. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 2/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9205 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SRINIVASA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: PUSHYA SITTARAMAN
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 147

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.(TP)A.NO.2/CHNY/2018 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) M/S. BAILEY HYDROPOWER PVT. LTD., (NOW KNOWN AS WAYNE BURT PETROCHEMICALS (P) LTD., A-10, SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL PARK, IRUNGATTUKOTTAI, SRIPERUMBUDUR 602 105. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI 34. PAN: AABCB1804F ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MS. PUSHYA SITTARAMAN, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. SRINIVASA RAO, CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 19.12.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.01.2020 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) PASSED U/S.144C(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. WE HEARD MS. PUSHYA SITTARAMAN, THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. SR.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT 2 I.T (TP).A. NO. 2/CHNY/2018 THE APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DRP AND NO ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. WHEN THE ATTENTION OF THE LD.SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS DRAWN TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253(D) OF THE ACT AND HOW THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP, THE LD. SR.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL HAS TO BE FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP AND NOT AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP. 3. WE HEARD SHRI M. SRINIVASA RAO, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. SECTION 253(D) OF THE ACT CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE APPEALABLE ORDER BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OR SECTION 147 OR SECTION 153A OR SECTION 153C IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP OR AN ORDER PASSED U/S.154 IN RESPECT OF SUCH ORDER. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL IS ADMITTEDLY FILED AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP. THE LD.SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT NO ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. IF NO ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP, THEN THERE CANNOT BE ANY ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE 3 I.T (TP).A. NO. 2/CHNY/2018 ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO PASS AN ORDER WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE DIRECTION WAS RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE DRP. IF NO ORDER IS PASSED WITHIN 1 MONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE DIRECTION WAS RECEIVED, THERE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER ORDER BEYOND SUCH PERIOD. IN CASE, ANY ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP WAS RECEIVED THEN IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THAT ORDER BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL U/S.253(D) OF THE ACT. SUFFICE TO SAY THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 2 ND JANUARY, 2020 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 2 ND JANUARY, 2020. RSR /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( )/CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. [ /GF