BARCLAYS MERCHANT BANK ( SINGAPORE ) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 633/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 July 2026AY 2014-1514 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the prescribed time limitations under Section 144C of the Act, making it bad in law and void ab initio. Consequently, the returned income was deemed to be accepted as the finally assessed income.

What were the facts?

The assessee's final assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(4) of the Income Tax Act. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had rejected the assessee's objections as time-barred, but the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to pass the final order after the DRP's decision, which was also beyond the stipulated period.

What were the issues?

Whether the final assessment order passed by the AO was barred by limitation as per Section 144C(4) of the Act, and if so, whether it should be quashed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 144C(4),Section 144C(13),Section 144C(2),Section 144C(3),Section 144C(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

Hearing: 29.04.2026Pronounced: 15.07.2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No. 633/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Barclays Merchant Bank Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Singapore) Limited (International Taxation) – Range C/o Ernst and Young LLP, 14th 1(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. 18th floor, Room No.1811, Air India Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400028 400021 PAN: AACCB0070E Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

: Shri Madhur Agarwal Assesseeby : Shri Satya Pal Kumar – CIT DR & Revenueby Shri Krishna Kumar – Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2026

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The present appeal of assessee arises against the order under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] passed by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (International Taxation)-1(2)(1), Mumbai [in short, “the Ld.AO”] dated 09.01.2023 passed in pursuance to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel [in short, “DRP”] u/s

ITA No. 633/Mum/2023 Barclays Merchant Bank (Singapore) Ltd. 144C(5) of the Act dated 29.12.2022. To challenge the impugned order, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Ground No.1 On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the learned AD erred in passing the final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 263 and 144C(13) of the Act beyond the time limit prescribed under section 144C(4) of the Act, therefore the final assessment order is bad in law and ought to be quashed. 2. Ground No.2 Without prejudice to ground no. 1, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in holding that gains amounting to INR 63,68,30,403 arising on account of cancellation of foreign exchange forward contracts (FX contracts) are chargeable to tax in India as 'income from other sources' as against 'income from capital gains' considered by the Appellant. 2.1. The learned AO erred in holding that the transaction in purchase and settlement of FX contracts cannot be said to be resulting in capital gains as FX contracts were never held by the Appellant as capital asset but were meant to be settled for price difference. 2.2. The learned AO erred in concluding that income arising from cancellation of FX contracts is neither capital gains nor business income but 'income from other sources' taxable under Article 23 of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty (IS Tax Treaty). 3. Ground No.3 Without prejudice to ground no. 1 and ground no. 2, the learned AO has erred in levying consequential interest of INR 29,20,17,886 under section 234B of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the ROI was filed by the assessee on 26.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs.1,20,04,67,824/-. The assessee company is incorporated as a tax resident of Singapore. The assessee is registered with Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) as a sub-account of Barclays Bank PLC, a registered Foreign Institutional Investor (FII) for carrying out investment activities in Indian capital markets. The case of assessee-company was selected for scrutiny, wherein the Ld. AO has made a reference u/s 92CA(1) of the Act to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO vide order u/s 92CA has not proposed any adjustment. Accordingly, the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed by Ld. AO on 18.12.2017, determining total income of Rs.120,25,14,400/-. 2

ITA No. 633/Mum/2023 Barclays Merchant Bank (Singapore) Ltd.

3.

Subsequently the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1 Mumbai has invoked his revisionary powers u/s 263 and issued a notice on 21.02.2020 with the observation that the assessee-company has transactions in foreign exchange contracts as Short-Term Capital Gain, consequently the gain from transaction in foreign exchange contracts has not been offered to taxation in India as same is taxable in Singapore and not in India as per treaty with Singapore. It is observed that the gain made through transaction in foreign exchange contract is income from other sources and not Capital Gain as per Article 23 of India-Singapore DTAA. However, the Assessing Officer has accepted the same as Short-Term Capital gain which is not only erroneous but prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. After deliberations in the proceedings u/s 263, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) [in short, “Ld. CIT(IT)] had computed that the assessee could not substantiate to establish direct nexus between investment made in India in normal course of business and to the foreign exchange forward contracts which would clearly distinguish between Capital Gain as claimed by the assessee or income from other sources, therefore, the assessee was show-caused along with an opportunity to substantiate the evidences as required in the proceedings as to why the amount of the gain out of cancellation of foreign exchange contracts be taxed as income from other sources and taxable in contracting state that is India as per India Singapore DTAA. 3

ITA No. 633/Mum/2023 Barclays Merchant Bank (Singapore) Ltd.

4.

The assessee made an exhaustive submission before the Ld. CIT(IT) which was considered, however were not found acceptable by the Ld. CIT(IT). Accordingly, it is held by Ld. CIT(IT) that the assessee could not substantiate how the cancellation of forward contracts in foreign exchange in Indian market are related to its normal business claiming simultaneously that it does not have a PE in India. The assessee could not substantiate the capital nature of such asset wherein the gain has been as a result of cancellation of the deal. In view of such findings, the gain out of cancellation of forward contracts is recorded an income from other sources and accordingly approved in India, reference was drawn to Article 23 of the India Singapore DTAA. In terms of aforesaid findings by Ld. CIT(IT) in the order u/s 263 dated 25.03.2021, the Ld. AO has given effect by adding an amount of Rs.63,68,30,403/- in the income of assessee under the income from other sources to be taxed at 40% + surcharge.

5.

Before passing the final order, the Assessing Officer has also issued a draft assessment order on 31st March, 2022, proposing the aforesaid adjustment in the total income of the assessee in terms of findings of Ld. CIT(IT) in the order u/s 263 dated 25.03.2021. The assessee has filed an objection before Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai in form 35A on 04.05.2022, however, DRP has rejected the objections of assessee treating the same as barred by limitation stating that the DRP has no power to condone the delay and therefore, the Ld.

ITA No. 633/Mum/2023 ITA No. Barclays Merchant Bank (Singapore) Ltd. Barclays Merchant Bank (Singapore) Ltd. AO is directed to pass the final order as per draft proposed in terms of provisions AO is directed to pass the final order as per draft proposed in terms of provisions AO is directed to pass the final order as per draft proposed in terms of provisions of section 144C(13) of the Act. of section 144C(13) of the Act.

6.

Since the Ld. AO has made the adjustment/variation in the income of Since the Ld. AO has made the adjustment/variation in the income of Since the Ld. AO has made the adjustment/variation in the income of assessee as per directions of Ld. CIT(IT) u/s assessee as per directions of Ld. CIT(IT) u/s 263 after rejection of assessee’s 263 after rejection of assessee’s objection by the DRP, the assessee is in appeal before us. objection by the DRP, the assessee is in appeal before us.

7.

The first ground of the the appeal is regarding passing of assessment order u/s appeal is regarding passing of assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 and 144C(13) of the Act beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 and 144C(13) of the Act beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 and 144C(13) of the Act beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 144C(4) of the Act, therefore the final assessment order is bad in law and ought 4) of the Act, therefore the final assessment order is bad in law and ought 4) of the Act, therefore the final assessment order is bad in law and ought to be quashed.

8.

In this regard, Ld. AR representing the assessee submitted that the In this regard, Ld. AR representing the assessee submitted that the In this regard, Ld. AR representing the assessee submitted that the impugned order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act is barred impugned order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act is barred impugned order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act is barred which is passed on 09th January, 2023. The Ld. AR has furnished a by limitation, which is passed on 09 January, 2023. The Ld. AR has furnished a chart showing chronology of events to substantiate the aforesaid contention, the chronology of events to substantiate the aforesaid contention, the chronology of events to substantiate the aforesaid contention, the same is extracted as under:

ITA No. 633/Mum/2023 Barclays Merchant Bank (Singapore) Ltd. 9. Ld. AR on this aspect has placed his reliance on the decision of ITAT Delhi “D” Bench reported in [2022] 134 taxmann.com 99 (Delhi-Trib) in the caseof Astro Offshore PTE Ltd. vs DCIT International Taxation, New Delhi stating that the limitation prescribed under sub-section (2) and sub-section (4) of section 144C needs to be strictly followed both by assessee as well as the Revenue. The Assessing Officer has no compulsion to wait beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the statute for completing final assessment, anticipating that assessee would be filing an objection before DRP. Ld. AR also relied on the decision of ITAT Bangalore “C” Bench in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA (TP)A No. 1715 & 692/Bang/2016 for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 vide order dated 8th March, 2021, wherein the identical ground has been decided by the Tribunal and has held that if the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C is in violation of mandatory provisions of section 144C(10) and (13) of the Act by not passing the order in pursuance of and in conformity with the directions of DRP. It is held that, if the objections are invalid as time barred having not been filed within the time prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 1444C, the AO will have to act in terms of Section 144C(3)(b) and complete the assessment within the time prescribed u/s 144C(4)(b) of the Act, namely, within one month from the end of the month in which the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. It is submitted by Ld. AR that in present case, the impugned order dated

ITA No. 633/Mum/2023 Barclays Merchant Bank (Singapore) Ltd. 09.10.2023 was passed beyond the prescribed time limitations under the provisions of Act, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

10.

Per contra, Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of Revenue Authorities.

11.

We have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and the decisions relied upon by the assessee. The undisputed facts of the case shows the chronological dates of events, which needs to be contemplated to decide, whether the impugned order passed on 9th January, 2023 was barred by limitation or not. In the facts of present case as per dates of events extracted (supra), the draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144C was passed on 31st March, 2022, which is physically delivered to the assessee on 4th April, 2022. The assessee was entitled to file its objections before the DRP in terms of provisions of section 144C(2)(b)(1) within 30 days of receipts of the draft of the order. In the present case, the assessee has filed its objections before DRP on 4th May, 2022. On this aspect, Ld. DRP noted that the period of limitation shall start from uploading of order on ITBA portal which in the present case was 31st March, 2022 and the physical copy of order is being sent as a matter of tradition and the reckoning of limitation with reference to receipt of physical copy is not as per new procedure of service of notice or orders etc. They referred to various decisions and concluded that the objections raised by assessee, which are not within 30 days from the date of uploading of order on the ITBA Portal was 7

ITA No. 633/Mum/2023 Barclays Merchant Bank (Singapore) Ltd. therefore barred by limitation and such objections cannot be addressed as the DRP has no power to condone the delay in filing the objections. The DRP has passed this order on 29thDecember, 2022. In terms of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Ld. AO was supposed to pass the assessment order by 31st May, 2022 according to the provisions of section 144C(4) of the Act which reads as under: 144C : “(3) The Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment on the basis of the draft order, if— (a) the assessee intimates to the Assessing Officer the acceptance of the variation; or (b) no objections are received within the period specified in sub-section (2). (4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 153 or section 153B, pass the assessment order under sub-section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,— (a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires.”

12.

In the present case, the assessee has not filed its objections within a period of 30 days, according to DRP assessee’s entitlement to file the objections was expired on 30th April, 2022, as the Ld. AO has confirmed service of draft order dated 31st March, 2022, on the same day through electronic mode i.e., ITBA system, therefore, the objection filed by assessee on 4th May,2022 are considered as time-barred. The facts remained undisputed that the DRP rejected the objection of assessee and the assessee has not objected to such observations of the DRP, instead the assessee raised the contention that in case as per sub-clause

ITA No. 633/Mum/2023 Barclays Merchant Bank (Singapore) Ltd. 3(b) of section 144C, if the objections are not received within a period specified in sub-section (2) which is within 30 days of receipt of the draft order by the assessee, the Ld. AO has to pass an order notwithstanding anything contained in section 153 or sub-section 153B within one month from the end of month in which the period of filing of objection under sub-section (2) expires.

13.

The aforesaid issue is dealt with by ITAT Delhi in the case of Astro Offshore PTE Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra), wherein the Hon’ble ITAT had observed as under: “7.2 As could be seen on a careful reading of the aforesaid provisions, in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer, at the first instance, has to propose a draft assessment order if he intends to make any variation in the income of the assessee which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. As per sub-section (2) of section 144C, on receipt of the draft assessment order, the assessee has to either file his acceptance of the variation to the Assessing Officer or file objections before the DRP, challenging such variation with due intimation to the Assessing Officer. However, such exercise has to be completed within thirty days from the date of receipt of the draft assessment order. Sub-section (3) of section 144C empowers the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment on the basis of draft assessment order under two circumstances; firstly, if the assessee intimates acceptance of the variation to the Assessing Officer or, secondly, if no objections are received within the period specified in sub-section (2) of section 144C of the Act. Sub-section (4) of section 144C, which has an overriding effect over sections 153 and 1538 of the Act, mandates that the Assessing Officer must pass the final assessment order under sub-section (3) of section 144C within one month from the end of the month in which the acceptance by the assessee of the variation proposed in the draft assessment order is received or period of filing of objection under sub-section (2) of section 144C expires. 8. Thus, a reading of the aforesaid provisions as a whole, would make it clear that the assessee has thirty days time from the date of receipt of draft assessment order to file objections before the DRP. Whereas, sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 144C make it clear that in case, the Assessing Officer does not receive any objections filed before the DRP within the period prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 144C of the Act, challenging the proposed variation, he has to complete the assessment within a period of one month from the end of the month in which the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. In the facts of the present appeal, as per Revenue's own admission the time limit for filing the objections before learned DRP against the draft assessment order was till 17-1-2020.

ITA No. 633/Mum/2023 Barclays Merchant Bank (Singapore) Ltd. 9. Whereas, the assessee, admittedly, filed the objections on 27-1-2020, which is beyond the period of limitation. Thus, as per the mandate of sub-section (4)(b) of section 144C, the Assessing Officer was duty-bound to complete the assessment based on the draft assessment order on expiry of thirty days from the date of receipt of draft assessment order, since, by that time theassessee had not filed the objections before learned DRP. Whereas, it is a fact on record that the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order on 12-1-2021, ie., much beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 144C(4)(b) of the Act. 10. The contention of learned Departmental Representative that before the Assessing Officer could have passed the final assessment order, the assessee filed objections before learned DRP, i.e., on 27-1-2020 and the Assessing Officer had no other option but to wait for the directions of the DRP, in our view, is unacceptable and has to be rejected at the threshold. A combined reading of the provisions contained under section 144C(1), (2), (3) and (4) makes it abundantly clear that there is no compulsion on the Assessing Officer to wait beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the statute for completing the final assessment, anticipating that the assessee would be filing an objection before the DRP. The period of limitation prescribed under sub-sections (2) and (4) is sacrosanct and has to be strictly followed, both, by the assessee as well as the Revenue. Therefore, the final assessment order having been passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 144C(4)(b) of the Act, has to be declared invalid. Accordingly, we do so. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee are clearly in support of the view expressed hereinabove. Resultantly, the impugned assessment order dated 12-1-2021 is quashed.”

14.

Further, on identical issue in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the ITAT Bangalore has dealt with the issue and observed as under: “18. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 19. In Ground No.2 assessee raises the issue regarding validity of final assessment order dated 31/08/2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that the impugned order is passed beyond the due date prescribed u/s 144C of the Act. The relevant dates to be considered in the present facts are as under:

date of draft assessment order : 10/03/2016 date on which draft assessment order was received by : 12/03/2016 assessee date on which objections were filed before DRP : 13/04/2016 date on which DRP passed directions : 24/08/2016 date on which the final assessment order was passed under : 31/08/2016 section 144C(13)

ITA No. 633/Mum/2023 Barclays Merchant Bank (Singapore) Ltd. 20. Admittedly the draft assessment order dated 10/3/2016 was received by assessee on 12/03/2016 as per the speed post tracking record of the postal department and the period of 30 days for filing Form 35 A in terms of section 144C (2) expired on 11/04/2016. Assessee in the present facts filed objections before DRP on 13/04/2016, thereby causing 2 days delay. The view taken by DRP that it has no power to condone the delay is inasmuch as such power is absent under section 144C of Income Tax (DRP) Rules 2009 cannot be found fault with. Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in case of TDK Electronics AG vs ACIT (supra) has dealt in detail with the various provisions, Act, wherein, the legislature has conferred the power of condoning delay to various authorities under the Act. Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in case of TDK Electronics AG US ACIT (supra) on identical issue has held as under: "15. The scheme of the relevant provisions in this regard is that when the AO makes a reference to the TPO, the latter passes an order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act. On receipt of the order from the TPO, the AO passes a draft order u/s. 144C(i). If dissatisfied with the draft order, the assessee has an option to either approach the DRP route by filing objections before the DRP or choose the appellate recourse by filing an appeal before the CIT(A). If an assessee opts to be governed by the procedure enshrined for the DRP reference, then the DRP is supposed to issue directions within nine months from the end of the month in which the draft order is forwarded to the eligible assessee as per sub-section (12) of section 144C. Sub-section (13) provides that upon a receipt of the direction in sub-section (5), the AO shall complete assessment within one month from the end of the month in which such a direction is received. At this juncture, it is significant to have a glance at the mandate of sub-section (3) of section 144C, which runs as under :- The Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment on the basis of the draft order, if- (a) the assessee intimates to the Assessing Officer the acceptance of the variation or are received within the period specified in sub-section (2)." (b) no objections are 16. The crux of section 144C(3) in so far as clause (a) is concerned is that if bellate route. In that scenario, the AO, assessee accepts the variation as per the draft order, then there is no an a need to sail through the DRP or the appellate in terms of section 1440(4)fa), will be required to complete the assessment on the basis of the draft order within a period of one month from the end of the month in which the acceptance is received. Clause (b) of section 144C(3) deals with a situation of completing the assessment on the basis of the draft order in a case in which no objections are received within the period specified in sub-section (2) In the latter situation, clause (b) of section 144C(4) provides that the AO will pass the assessment order within one month from the end of the month in which the period of filing the objections under sub-section (2), expires. It means that if an assessee does not file objections against the draft order before the DRP within a period of thirty days as per sub-section (2), the All, without waiting for anything else, will have to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. The DRP dismissed the objections of the assessee in limine by opining that the assessee could not have filed objections outside the time limit provided under sub- section (2) of section 144C. The net effect of the order of the DRP is that the objections filed by the assessee were time barred and hence no cognizance could have been taken of them. Once the objections filed by the assessee are time barred, the natural corollary 11

ITA No. 633/Mum/2023 Barclays Merchant Bank (Singapore) Ltd. is that no valid objections were filed by the assessee. One cannot contemplate a situation that the objections are invalid for the DRP so as not to issue any direction u/s 144C(5) and valid for the AO so as to pass order u/s 144C(13) of the Act. If the objections are invalid as time barred having not been filed within the time prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 1444C, the AO will have to act in terms of Section 144C(3)(b) and complete the assessment within the time prescribed u/s 144C(4)(b) of the Act, namely, within one month from the end of the month in which the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. 17. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that, the period of 30 days for filing objections within sub-section (2) of section 144C expired on 23.01.2019. Going by the mandate of subsection (3) of section 144C(3)/144C(4), the AO was supposed to complete the assessment on the basis of the draft order by February, 2019. As against this, the AO actually completed the assessment u/s. 144C(13) on 24.10.2019. Such a completion of assessment not only under the wrong provision but also beyond the limitation period is ultra vires and hence cannot stand. We declare the assessment order to be time barred and ex consequenti null and void, with the effect that the returned income will automatically get accepted as finally assessed income.18. In the result , the appeal is allowed." 21. As there is no difference in facts as observed in para 18-19 herein above of present case before us, we hold that impugned order passed dated 31/08/2016 u/s 144C(13) is beyond the limitation period and is ultra virus.”

15.

Referring to aforesaid two orders, applying the ratio of law emerging from the aforesaid decisions, we find that in the present case while the draft order was passed on 31st March, 2022 and the assessee in terms of provisions of section 144C(2) was supposed to file an objection within 30 days that is before 30th of April, 2022, whereas the objections were filed on 4th May, 2022, therefore the same was considered as time-barred by Ld. DRP. The Ld. AO in terms of provisions of sub-section (3) and (4) of section 144C was supposed to pass the order within one month from the end of month in which the period of filing of objection under sub-section (2) expires. Therefore, the order was supposed to be passed before 31st May, 2022 in terms of provisions of section 144C(4) of the Act, but the Ld. AO had waited for disposal of belated objections of assessee by

ITA No. 633/Mum/2023 Barclays Merchant Bank (Singapore) Ltd. the DRP which has happened by order passed by DRP u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 29th December, 2022 and finally the impugned order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144C were passed on 9th January, 2023. Therefore, the impugned order which was to be passed on 31st May, 2022 has actualy passed on 9th January 2023 was beyond prescribed time limitations under sub-section (2) and (4) of section 144 of the Act which are sacrosanct and has to be strictly followed. 16. In the present case, the Ld. AO has waited for disposal of objections by the Ld. DRP whereas the objections were raised by the assessee beyond the allowed period of 30 days from the receipt of draft order, which the assessee has considered to be received on 4th April, 2022 and accordingly, the objections were filed on 4th May, 2022, whereas the Ld. AO has the information on record that on ITBA Portal, said draft assessment order was uploaded on 31st March, 2022. Under such circumstances, The Ld. AO was not supposed to wait for the order of Ld. DRP and, therefore, has violated the mandate of law to pass the order beyond the prescribed time limitations u/s 144C of the Act.

17.

In backdrop of such facts, circumstances and jurisprudence relied upon by the assessee, we find that the impugned order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144C(13) dated 9th January, 2023 was barred by limitation and has to be treated as bad in law. We accordingly, hold that the impugned order dated 9th January, 2023 which is challenged by the assessee is bad in law and void ab initio being

ITA No. 633/Mum/2023 Barclays Merchant Bank (Singapore) Ltd. barred by limitation. The same, therefore, is liable to be quashed. In result, Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal stands allowed in above terms.

18.

Since, while deciding the legal issue raised by the assessee regarding passing of order beyond the time limits prescribed u/s 144C(4) of the Act, we have struck down the impugned assessment dated 9th January, 2023, the other issues raised by the assessee on merits of the case or on legal aspect become academic and therefore, are not adjudicated separately.

19.

In result, the appeal of assessee is allowed, in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15-07-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated : 15-07-2026. Ankit K., Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT

BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →