The timelines under Section 144C for assessments involving eligible assessees coexist with those under Section 153, ensuring timely tax assessments without redundancy.

JUDGMENT :

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted in SLP (Civil) Nos.20569-20572 of 2023.

2. I have perused the judgment authored by my learned Brother Satish Chandra Sharma, J. I am unable to persuade myself to concur with the reasoning adopted by my learned Brother, hence my separate opinion.

2.1 In the present cases, the respondents in the first batch of cases being non-resident assessees engaged in the business of exploration in terms of Section 44BB of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (for short, “the Act”), are eligible assessees within the meaning of Section 144C.

2.2 Briefly stated the issue which arises in these appeals is the interpretation to be given to Section 144C in light of Section 153 of the Act. The question which falls for consideration is on the applicability of Section 153 to a proceeding under Section 144C of the Act namely, whether the period of eleven months as envisaged under Section 144C of the Act should be over and above the limitation period prescribed, particularly, under Section 153 (1) or (3), as the case may be. In other words, whether the time consumed for concluding the proceeding under Section 144C has to be subsumed within the limitation prescribed under Section 153 (1) or (3) or as the case may be. It is worth noting that the question is one of statutory interpretation i.e. the interplay between Sections 153 and 144C and not one of normatively assessing the adequacy of time available to the Revenue or an assessee, under any scenario. If this Court were to assign its own view to the adequacy of statutory prescribed timelines, then it will amount to ignoring the cardinal principles of interpreting fiscal statutes. While my learned Brother has allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue, I have decided to dismiss the same.

Factual Background:

3. Briefly stated, the respondents in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 20569-20572/2023 are group companies incorporated overseas and are engaged in the business of shallow water drilling for clients engaged in the oil and gas industry. Respondents have been filing their return of income under the Act. The four special leave petitions filed before this Court arise from four writ petitions being W.P. No.2340/2021, W.P. No.2661/2021, W.P. No.3059/2021 and W.P. No.3060/2021 preferred by the respondents before the Bombay High Court, which were allowed by the High Court vide common impugned order dated 04.08.2023. Considering the material similarities in all writ petitions, the common impugned order narrated and discussed the facts in W.P. No.2661/2021 and we will narrate the same insofar as concurrent with others which is from SLP(C) Nos.20570/2023. SLP(C) Nos.20569-20570/2023 concern Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 and SLP(C) Nos.20571-20572/2023 concern A.Y. 2018-19.

3.1 The respondents in the above cases are non-resident assessees, which are engaged, inter alia, in the business of providing services or facilities in connection with prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral oils, had the option to compute their income on presumptive basis under Section 44(b)(b) of the Act; however, for A.Y. 2014-15, the respondents opted out of the option to compute their income on presumptive basis and declared a total loss of Rs.120,18,44,672/- in their Return of Income filed on 29.11.2014. Vide Notice issued under Section 143 (2) dated 28.08.2015, respondents’ Return of Income was selected for scrutiny. Subsequently, the Draft assessment order was issued on 26.12.2016 computing the respondent’s total income at Rs.4,34,79,980/-. Undisputedly, Respondents are eligible assessees as per Section 144C(15) of the Act.