CERAGON NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5659/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ceragon Networks India Private Limited, vs. DCIT, Circle 4 (2), A-32, Mathura Road, Delhi. Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, Delhi – 110 044. (PAN : AACCC3200F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Shri Ramit Katyal, AR Shri Dhruv Seth, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Shaveta Nakra Datta, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 14.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 08.07.2026 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. The appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13)/144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for AY 2021-22 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act.

2 ITA No.5659/DEL/2024

3 ITA No.5659/DEL/2024

09.09.2024. The relevant decision is placed at pages 359 to 376 of the case law paper book. He brought to our notice ratio of the said decision at page 374 of the case law paper book. He submitted that the above decision is exactly similar to the facts of the present case. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that the due procedure was followed in the assessment order and there is no deviation. 4. Considered the rival submissions and material available on record. We observed that Assessing Officer has passed draft assessment order on 14.12.2023 u/s 144C(1) of the Act. Against the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. DRP and ld. DRP has passed the order dated 30.09.2024 and in the above order, ld. DRP has given direction to the Assessing Officer/TPO to incorporate the findings in respect of various objections suitably in the final assessment order. We further noticed that respectfully following the directions of the ld. DRP, TPO has passed the order giving effect to directions u/s 144C dated 28.10.2024. However, the Assessing Officer while passing the final assessment order passed impugned order dated 24.10.2024 without giving effect to the order passed u/s 144C(5) of the Act with the observation that he has not received the order giving effect from TPO till date i.e. before passing of the assessment order. However, the fact in the present case is that ld. TPO has passed the order giving effect on 28.10.2024 and Assessing

4 ITA No.5659/DEL/2024

Officer should have passed the order giving effect on receipt of OGE from the TPO and should have incorporated the OGE passed by the TPO within the limitation period prescribed u/s 144C. However, the Assessing Officer even though on receipt of OGE from TPO failed to pass the final assessment order incorporating the same. Since final assessment order is not passed before the due date and also failed to incorporate the directions of the ld. DRP, the above facts are exactly similar to the facts in the case of Comparex India P. Ltd. (supra). In the case of Comparex India P. Ltd. (supra), the coordinate Bench has held as under :-

“13. From the above decision, Hon’ble High Court insisted that when an authority acts contrary to law, the said act of the authority is required to be quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law and they have also opined that an action is not required to establish prejudice to the assessee. Therefore, in the present case also, while passing the final assessment order, the Assessing Officer (jurisdictional Assessing Officer) has not followed the directions of ld. DRP as per section 144C (13) of the Act and further we observed that the relevant Assessing Officer has not taken any step to pass a rectification order till now. We further observed that the TPO has passed OGE order to give effect TP adjustments after DRP directions and this is consequently part of the assessment records and Assessing Officer no doubt made a mistake which has led to not following of statutory provisions and not followed it up for making it proper which is in line with the provisions of section 144C of the Act. This is gross violation on the part of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and ld. DR for the Revenue vehemently argued that it is a mistake. If it is a mistake, the Department should have acted upon to rectify the mistake within reasonable time. In this case, no records were shown to make such efforts taken by the officer. It is clearly violation of law which deserves to be acted upon and the action of the Assessing Officer is

5 ITA No.5659/DEL/2024

contrary to the provisions of the Act and contrary to the law. For the purpose of any subsequent proceedings, what is relevant is the final assessment order for all purposes including the collection of tax. The assessment order so passed by the Assessing Officer deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, ground no.3 and additional ground no.16 raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. Respectfully following the aforesaid order, the assessment order so passed by the Assessing Officer is quashed and ground no.1.4 raised by the assessee is allowed. 6. Since we have decided the issue on legal issue, the other grounds raised by the assessee are kept open. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 8th day of July, 2026 Sd/- sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 08.07.2026 TS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals). 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI