Wp/13646/2021 Of Te Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF FEBRUARY 202)BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV|$WRIT PETITION No.13646/2021 (TIT) Between:| TE Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd.,(Formerly Known as Tyco Electronics|Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.) No.22B, TE Park, —Doddenakundi2[nd|]Phase,Industrial Area,Whitefield Road,Bangalore - 560 048Represented herein by its.Senior Director - Controlier and DirectorMr. Visnwanatn.... PetitlIOner| (By Sri Kali Vohra, Senior Advocate for|Smt. Manasa Anantnan, Advocate) Ana* 1.Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,Transfer Pricing,DC/ACIT TP 2(2)(2),BMTC Building, 6[tn]BIOCK,80 feet Road, Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 095.Transfer Pricing,DC/ACIT TP 2(2)(2),BMTC Building, 6[tn]BIOCK,80 feet Road, Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 095. 2.Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,Circle 7(1)(1),2[nd]Fioor, BMTC Building, |,[tn]Block, 80 feet Road, |Koramangala,Bangalore - 560 095.Circle 7(1)(1),2[nd]Fioor, BMTC Building, |,[tn]Block, 80 feet Road, |Koramangala,Bangalore - 560 095. 3.Tne Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-3, 5[tn]Fioor, BMTC Building, [tn]Block, 80 feet Road, | Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 095... Respondents. (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) This Writ Petition ts filed under Article 226 of Constitution|of India, praying to deciare 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 Courtmade the following: ORDER The petitioner has sougnt for deciaration tnat the|proceedings initiated by the second respondent for theAssessment Year 2006-2007, including the reference made to the first respondent is barred by limitation. -Tnepetitioner has also challenged the notice dated 09.07.2021.at Annexure-L issued by the first respondent for tneAssessment Year 2006-2007 stating that it is barred bylimitation and is without jurisdiction and has sought for adirection to the respondents to refund an amount ofRs.14,04,01,147/- with applicable interest in terms of Section 244 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for theAssessment Year 2006-2700 / 2.|It is submitted that the Income Tax AppellateTridDunal Nas passed the order dated 03.11.2016 settingaside|theimpugned order|and|hasremandedtheproceedings to AO/TPO/DRP for a fresn decision. 3The admitted facts as made out are that the PCIT|has received the copy of the order on 29.12.2016. The timeperiod for completion of assessment proceedings in terms ofSection 153(3) would be nine montns from the end ofFinancial Year in which, order under Section 254 is receivedby tne Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioneror Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the casemay be. If that were to be so, the order was required to bepassed by 31.12.2017 as the Financial Year ending would)have been 31.03.2017. 4It is furtner to be noticed tnat insofar as tne TPOis concerned, the order was required to be passed sixty days prior to the time prescribed under Section 153 forcompletion of the proceedings in terms of Section 92CA(3A)_of the Income Tax Act. Further, under Section 153(4), thetime prescribed would stand extended by twelve months, ifduring the course of proceeding for assessment, thereference is made under sub-section (1) of Section 92CA ofthe Income Tax Act. If that were to be so, the period underSection 153(3) read with Section 153(4) would standextended till 31.12.2018 in terms of Section 92CA(3A) andthe TPO would then be required to pass an order as on31.10.2018. In the present case, the notice of TPO is dated09.07.2021 as per Annexure-L. Clearly, on the admittedperiod available as discussed above, the notice is beyondthe time prescribed and is the one barred by limitation andis liable to be set aside on that sole ground alone.| 5.|What needs to be noticed|is that theproceedings were restored back to TPO/AO/DRP in terms ofthe order dated 03.11.2016. Learneq Senior Counsel]|appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since the entirety of tne proceedings have been restored to theOfficers abovementioned, the consequential refund of taxbeyond the admitted liability is to flow and there is nofurtner discretion at the end of the Department. | 6.|If what has been restored is the entirety of theproceedings and as held above the notice dated 09.07.2021.being time barred, the logical consequence of refund ofamount in excess of admitted liability insofar as the tax paidwill have to be made good by the respondent-Departmenttaking note of the principle under Section 240 of the IncomeTax Act. J.Accordingly, the notice at Annexure-L dated09.07.2021 is set aside and the respondents to refund anamount of Rs.14,04,01,147/- in terms of the discussion.made hereinabove alongwith interest as per Section 244 ofthe Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2006-200/7,before tne end of April 2022. �� 5�����������+�������+��������� � ���������������� !������������������������ ������� ������������������������������ ����