ORDER 

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 18.11.2015 passed u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) subsequent to the directions of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) vide directions dated 28.10.2015 for assessment year 2011-12.

2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is a 100% subsidiary of SSP Limited, United Kingdom which is engaged in supply of software services industry worldwide. The assessee company was incorporated on 21st April 2004 as Sirius Financial Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. and subsequently its name was changed to SSP India Pvt. Ltd. on 31st January, 2008. The return of income was filed declaring income at Rs. NIL. Subsequently the case picked up for scrutiny through CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had entered into international transaction with its Associated Enterprises (AE). A reference was made to the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the Arms Length Price (ALP). The Ld. TPO proposed an adjustment of Rs. 1,36,95,705/-. The draft assessment order was passed incorporating the proposed transfer pricing adjustment and aggrieved the assessee approached the Ld. DRP. However the Ld. DRP also overruled the objections of the assessee company and the final assessment order was passed incorporating the transfer pricing adjustment as originally proposed. Now, the assessee has approached the ITAT and has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. That the order of assessment u/s 144C(13) read with section 143(3) of the Act dated 18.11.2015 framed by learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle4, Gurgaon is barred by limitation and deserves to be quashed as such.

1.1 That impugned order of assessment though dated 18.11.2015 has been dispatched by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax on 14.12.2015 by speed post and finally served on 16.12.2015 and therefore the impugned order of assessment has been framed on 14.12.2015 i.e. after a period of one month from the end of month in which directions were received by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 144C(5) of the Act and thus, the same is barred by limitation.

2. That the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle has erred both in law and on facts in determining total income u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs. 4,15,80,590/- as against income declared of Rs. 2,78,84,880/- by the appellant company.

2.1 That while computing the aforesaid income the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income tax has failed to appreciate that adjustment made of Rs. 1,56,95,705/- to arms length price in respect of international transaction relating to provision of support services for development and maintenance of software to its parent company SSP(UK) Ltd. in pursuance to an order dated 16.1.2015 u/s 92CA(3) of the Act r/w an order dated 27.10.2015 u/s 144C(5) of the Act is beyond the scope and ambit of the adjustments provided in Explanation to section 115JB of Act.

2.2 That even otherwise since the aforesaid adjustment was not part of the draft order of assessment dated 25.3.2015 u/s 144C(1) of the Act or part of directions by DRP in an order dated 27.10.2015 u/s 144C(5) of the Act, the aforesaid adjustment is therefore illegal, invalid and untenable.

3. That in any case the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Gurgaon has erred both in law and on facts in making an adjustment of Rs. 1,36,95,705/- to arms length price in respect of international transaction relating to provision of support services for development and maintenance of software to its parent company SSP(UK) Ltd. in pursuance to an order dated 27.10.2015 u/s 144C(3) of the Act r/w an order dated 16.1.2015 u/s 92CA(3) of the Act.

3.1 That the learned AO/DRP/TPO has erred, on facts and in law, in rejecting the economic analysis in the documentation filed by the appellant company in terms of s