IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha CIT-(IT &TP)

C/o Yusen Logistics (India) 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Private limited, Central Plaza, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Vs.

Room No.202, 2nd Floor, 2/6, Kolkata - 700107, Kolkata, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700107 West Bengal, 700020 (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. AABCN1372N Assessee by : Shri Ketan Ved, AR Revenue by : Shri Pradip Kumar Mondal, DR Date of hearing: 19.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 06.05.2025

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation & Transfer Pricing) Kolkata (Ld. CIT) dated 27.03.2019 for the AY 2014-15.

02. The assessee has challenged the revisionary order passed by ld. Pr.

CIT on various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal filed by the assessee. Besides, the assessee has also raised an additional ground vide letter dated 24.08.2021, challenging the validity of order passed u/s 263 of the Act on the ground of being invalid as it seeks to revise the assessment order dated 21.02.2017, passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(3)(a) of the Act, which itself is barred by limitation.

The ground raised by the assessee are extracted below:-

“1:0 Re.: Validity of Order u/s. 263:

1:1 The impugned Order dated 27 March 2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income- tax u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] is bad in law since it seeks to revise the Order dated 21 February 2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3)(a) which Order being barred by limitation is therefore bad-in-law and void ab-initio.

1:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law prevailing on the subject, the Order dated 21 February 2017 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.พ.ร. 144C(3) (a) of the Act was barred by limitation and hence the same could not be revised u/s. 263 of the Act.

2:0 Re.: General:

2:1 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and/or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.”

03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on

28.11.2014, declaring total income at ₹18,92,40,510/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was accordingly framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 21.02.2017, assessing the income at ₹22,29,26,790/-. The ld. Pr.CIT thereafter noted on the perusal of the assessment order that the ld. AO had not referred the issue to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the Arms Length Price about the international transactions. The ld. Pr.CIT stated in the order that though the ld. AO had issued the letter to the assessee as to why the matter should not be referred to ld. Transfer Pricing Officer for benchmarking the international transactions which was also replied by the ld. Assessing Officer. AO however thereafter had not mentioned as to why the issue was not referred to the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer. Accordingly, the assessee was issued show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act qua the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 21.02.2017 being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and finally the same was revised by the ld. Pr. CIT by holding the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and by directing the ld. AO to pass the assessment order after making reference to ld. Transfer Pricing Officer for determining Arms Length Price u/s 92CA(3) of the Act after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. T

04. he ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the ld. Pr.

CIT seeks to revise the assessment order which was invalid on the ground of being barred by limitation as per provisions of Section 153(1) of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that as per the provisi