TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

WP/13646/2021

AI Insights

The case involves TE Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd., which filed a writ petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and other officials, challenging the proceedings initiated for the Assessment Year 2006-2007. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were barred by limitation and the notice issued was without jurisdiction. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had previously set aside an order and remanded the proceedings, which were still ongoing. The court found that the notice issued was beyond the permissible time frame set by the Income Tax Act, leading to the decision in favor of the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726721 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: KALI VOHRA
• Keywords: Assessment proceedings; Barred by limitation; Illegal; Jurisdiction; Refund; Transfer pricing
• Section: 244; 254; 153(4); 153(3); 226; 240; 92CA(3A)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.13646/2021 (T-IT) Between: TE Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Tyco Electronics Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.) No.22B, \"TE Park\", Doddenakundi 2nd Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bangalore - 560 048 Represented herein by its Senior Director - Controller and Director Mr. Vishwanath. … Petitioner (By Sri Kali Vohra, Senior Advocate for Smt. Manasa Ananthan, Advocate) And: 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing, DC/ACIT TP 2(2)(2), BMTC Building, 6th Block, 80 feet Road, Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 095. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 7(1)(1), 2nd Floor, BMTC Building, 6th Block, 80 feet Road, Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 095. 2 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-3, 5th Floor, BMTC Building, 6th Block, 80 feet Road, Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 095. … Respondents (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to declare that the proceedings initiated by the R2 for the Assessment Year 2006-07, including the reference made to the R1 are barred by limitation, and therefore without jurisdiction and illegal and etc. This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER The petitioner has sought for declaration that the proceedings initiated by the second respondent for the Assessment Year 2006-2007, including the reference made to the first respondent is barred by limitation. The petitioner has also challenged the notice dated 09.07.2021 at Annexure-L issued by the first respondent for the Assessment Year 2006-2007 stating that it is barred by limitation and is without jurisdiction and has sought for a direction to the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.14,04,01,147/- with applicable interest in terms of 3 Section 244 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2006-2007. 2. It is submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has passed the order dated 03.11.2016 setting aside the impugned order and has remanded the proceedings to AO/TPO/DRP for a fresh decision. 3. The admitted facts as made out are that the PCIT has received the copy of the order on 29.12.2016. The time period for completion of assessment proceedings in terms of Section 153(3) would be nine months from the end of Financial Year in which, order under Section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be. If that were to be so, the order was required to be passed by 31.12.2017 as the Financial Year ending would have been 31.03.2017. 4. It is further to be noticed that insofar as the TPO is concerned, the order was required to be passed sixty 4 days prior to the time prescribed under Section 153 for completion of the proceedings in terms of Section 92CA(3A) of the Income Tax Act. Further, under Section 153(4), the time prescribed would stand extended by twelve months, if during the course of proceeding for assessment, the reference is made under sub-section (1) of Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act. If that were to be so, the period under Section 153(3) read with Section 153(4) would stand extended till 31.12.2018 in terms of Section 92CA(3A) and the TPO would then be required to pass an order as on 31.10.2018. In the present case, the notice of TPO is dated 09.07.2021 as per Annexure-L. Clearly, on the admitted period available as discussed above, the notice is beyond the time prescribed and is the one barred by limitation and is liable to be set aside on that sole ground alone. 5. What needs to be noticed is that the proceedings were restored back to TPO/AO/DRP in terms of the order dated 03.11.2016. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since the 5 entirety of the proceedings have been restored to the Officers abovementioned, the consequential refund of tax beyond the admitted liability is to flow and there is no further discretion at the end of the Department. 6. If what has been restored is the entirety of the proceedings and as held above the notice dated 09.07.2021 being time barred, the logical consequence of refund of amount in excess of admitted liability insofar as the tax paid will have to be made good by the respondent-Department taking note of the principle under Section 240 of the Income Tax Act. 7. Accordingly, the notice at Annexure-L dated 09.07.2021 is set aside and the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.14,04,01,147/- in terms of the discussion made hereinabove alongwith interest as per Section 244 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2006-2007, before the end of April 2022. 6 With the above observations and directions, this petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VGR "