SKILLNET SOLUNATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1023/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2026AY 2022-2310 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed after the expiry of the one-month period from the end of the month in which the DRP directions were received. Therefore, the order is barred by limitation and void ab initio.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The primary contention is that the order was passed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was within the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144C(13),Section 153

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh a/w Ms. Shivali, Shri Pravin Salumkhe (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 20/05/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 1023/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23

SkillNet Solutions India Deputy Commissioner of Income Private Limited, 817, Raheja Tax, Circle – 3(3)(1), Aaykar Vs. Chambers, Free Press Journal Bhavan, Mumbai – 400020, Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai Maharashtra. – 400093, Maharashtra. PAN NO. AAFCS 3362 P Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Singh a/w Ms. Shivali Mhatre : Shri Pravin Salumkhe (Sr. DR) Revenue by

: 11/05/2026 Date of Hearing : 20/05/2026 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 27.12.2025 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1) [hereinafter referred to as “the Assessing Officer”] for Assessment Year 2022–23, pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) dated 30.09.2025.

SkillNet Solutions India 2 Private Limited, ITA No. 1023/MUM/2026

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee invited our attention to the preliminary legal ground assessee invited our attention to the preliminary legal ground assessee invited our attention to the preliminary legal ground challenging the validity of challenging the validity of the impugned assessment order on the the impugned assessment order on the ground of limitation. It was submitted that the final assessment ground of limitation. It was submitted that the final assessment ground of limitation. It was submitted that the final assessment order having been passed beyond the statutory time prescribed order having been passed beyond the statutory time prescribed order having been passed beyond the statutory time prescribed under section 144C(13) of the Income under section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), the same is ex fa Act”), the same is ex facie barred by limitation and consequently cie barred by limitation and consequently void ab initio.

3.

Elaborating the contention, the learned counsel submitted that Elaborating the contention, the learned counsel submitted that Elaborating the contention, the learned counsel submitted that section 144C(13) of the Act mandates that the Assessing Officer section 144C(13) of the Act mandates that the Assessing Officer section 144C(13) of the Act mandates that the Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment within one month from the end of shall complete the assessment within one month from the end of shall complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the directions of the DRP are received. month in which the directions of the DRP are received. month in which the directions of the DRP are received. According to the learned counsel, the Assessing Officer failed to According to the learned counsel, the Assessing Officer failed to According to the learned counsel, the Assessing Officer failed to adhere to the mandatory statutory timeline prescribed under adhere to the mandatory statutory timeline prescribed under adhere to the mandatory statutory timeline prescribed under section 144C(13) read with section 153 of the Act and, therefore, section 144C(13) read with section 153 of the Act and, therefore, section 144C(13) read with section 153 of the Act and, therefore, the assessment order lacks jurisdictional validity. sment order lacks jurisdictional validity.

4.

It was further submitted that the directions of the learned DRP It was further submitted that the directions of the learned DRP It was further submitted that the directions of the learned DRP were uploaded on the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) were uploaded on the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) were uploaded on the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) portal on 30.09.2025 and, consequently, the final assessment order portal on 30.09.2025 and, consequently, the final assessment order portal on 30.09.2025 and, consequently, the final assessment order ought to have been passed on or before 31.10.2025. However, the passed on or before 31.10.2025. However, the passed on or before 31.10.2025. However, the impugned order came to be passed only on 27.12.2025, i.e., well impugned order came to be passed only on 27.12.2025, i.e., well impugned order came to be passed only on 27.12.2025, i.e., well beyond the limitation period prescribed under the statute. It was beyond the limitation period prescribed under the statute. It was beyond the limitation period prescribed under the statute. It was thus contended that the assessment order being time-barred is thus contended that the assessment order being time thus contended that the assessment order being time

SkillNet Solutions India 3 Private Limited, ITA No. 1023/MUM/2026

liable to be quashed as non est in the eyes of law. d as non est in the eyes of law. In support of the In support of the aforesaid proposition, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the aforesaid proposition, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the aforesaid proposition, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Principal Commissioner of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sterling Oil Resources Ltd. tax v. Sterling Oil Resources Ltd., ITA No.1238 of 2018. , ITA No.1238 of 2018. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the the rival submissions and carefully perused the the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. The short issue arising for our material available on record. The short issue arising for our material available on record. The short issue arising for our consideration is whether the final assessment order passed under consideration is whether the final assessment order passed under consideration is whether the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act is within the period of limitation prescribed under the thin the period of limitation prescribed under the thin the period of limitation prescribed under the statute.

6.

From the impugned assessment order itself, it is evident that the From the impugned assessment order itself, it is evident that the From the impugned assessment order itself, it is evident that the Assessing Officer has specifically referred to the DRP directions Assessing Officer has specifically referred to the DRP directions Assessing Officer has specifically referred to the DRP directions dated 30.09.2025. Thus, there remains no dispute that the dated 30.09.2025. Thus, there remains no dispute that the dated 30.09.2025. Thus, there remains no dispute that the directions of the learned DRP were passed and uploaded on the directions of the learned DRP were passed and uploaded on the directions of the learned DRP were passed and uploaded on the ITBA portal on 30.09.2025 itself. Consequently, in terms of section portal on 30.09.2025 itself. Consequently, in terms of section portal on 30.09.2025 itself. Consequently, in terms of section 144C(13) of the Act, the Assessing Officer was statutorily required 144C(13) of the Act, the Assessing Officer was statutorily required 144C(13) of the Act, the Assessing Officer was statutorily required to pass the final assessment order within one month from the end to pass the final assessment order within one month from the end to pass the final assessment order within one month from the end of the month in which such directions were received, i.e., on or of the month in which such directions were received, i.e., of the month in which such directions were received, i.e., before 31.10.2025. Admittedly, however, the impugned final before 31.10.2025. Admittedly, however, the impugned final before 31.10.2025. Admittedly, however, the impugned final assessment order has been passed only on 27.12.2025. The order, assessment order has been passed only on 27.12.2025. The order, assessment order has been passed only on 27.12.2025. The order, therefore, is manifestly beyond the limitation period prescribed therefore, is manifestly beyond the limitation period prescribed therefore, is manifestly beyond the limitation period prescribed under the Act and is consequently unsustainable in law. under the Act and is consequently unsustainable in law. under the Act and is consequently unsustainable in law.

SkillNet Solutions India 4 Private Limited, ITA No. 1023/MUM/2026

7.

The e e issue issue issue is is is squarely squarely squarely covered covered covered by by by the the the authoritative authoritative authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in pronouncement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in pronouncement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sterling Oil Resources tax v. Sterling Oil Resources Ltd. wherein the Hon’ble Court, after exhaustively examining the wherein the Hon’ble Court, after exhaustively examining the wherein the Hon’ble Court, after exhaustively examining the statutory framework o statutory framework of section 144C(13), categorically held that the f section 144C(13), categorically held that the time limit prescribed therein is mandatory and not merely directory. time limit prescribed therein is mandatory and not merely directory. time limit prescribed therein is mandatory and not merely directory. The Hon’ble High Court observed that once the statute prescribes a The Hon’ble High Court observed that once the statute prescribes a The Hon’ble High Court observed that once the statute prescribes a definite period for passing the final assessment order, the Revenue definite period for passing the final assessment order, the Revenue definite period for passing the final assessment order, the Revenue authorities are duty bound to strictly adhere to the same and any orities are duty bound to strictly adhere to the same and any orities are duty bound to strictly adhere to the same and any deviation therefrom renders the assessment order void and deviation therefrom renders the assessment order void and deviation therefrom renders the assessment order void and unenforceable in law. The Hon’ble Court further held that the unenforceable in law. The Hon’ble Court further held that the unenforceable in law. The Hon’ble Court further held that the limitation cannot be extended by taking recourse to any subsequent limitation cannot be extended by taking recourse to any subsequent limitation cannot be extended by taking recourse to any subsequent proceedings or internal departmental processes not contemplated ings or internal departmental processes not contemplated ings or internal departmental processes not contemplated by the statute. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, while by the statute. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, while by the statute. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, while dismissing the Revenue’s appeal, emphatically reiterated that dismissing the Revenue’s appeal, emphatically reiterated that dismissing the Revenue’s appeal, emphatically reiterated that statutory statutory statutory timelines timelines timelines prescribed prescribed prescribed under under under section section section 144C(13) 144C(13) 144C(13) are are are sacrosanct and mandatory in character. The Court observed that ndatory in character. The Court observed that ndatory in character. The Court observed that procedural discipline in adherence to limitation provisions is procedural discipline in adherence to limitation provisions is procedural discipline in adherence to limitation provisions is fundamental to the rule of law and certainty in tax administration. fundamental to the rule of law and certainty in tax administration. fundamental to the rule of law and certainty in tax administration. The ratio laid down therein squarely governs the controversy before The ratio laid down therein squarely governs the controversy before The ratio laid down therein squarely governs the controversy before us. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in evant finding of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in evant finding of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sterling Oil Resources Limited Sterling Oil Resources Limited (supra) (supra) is reproduced for ready reference:

“Application of Section 144C (13) to Present Case : “Application of Section 144C (13) to Present Case :

SkillNet Solutions India 5 Private Limited, ITA No. 1023/MUM/2026

35.

In the instant case, there is no dispute on the dates. The directions of the DRP the instant case, there is no dispute on the dates. The directions of the DRP the instant case, there is no dispute on the dates. The directions of the DRP were received by the AO on 23 December 2014. The DRP with respect to the were received by the AO on 23 December 2014. The DRP with respect to the were received by the AO on 23 December 2014. The DRP with respect to the share transaction which was re share transaction which was re-characterized as loan directed the TPO/AO to characterized as loan directed the TPO/AO to consider the SBI PLR of FY 2 consider the SBI PLR of FY 2009-10 as arms length price for evaluating the loan 10 as arms length price for evaluating the loan transaction. Pursuant to the same, the TPO vide order dated 27 January 2015 transaction. Pursuant to the same, the TPO vide order dated 27 January 2015 transaction. Pursuant to the same, the TPO vide order dated 27 January 2015 informed the AO that the total adjustment as per the directions of the DRP would informed the AO that the total adjustment as per the directions of the DRP would informed the AO that the total adjustment as per the directions of the DRP would be Rs.49,39,21,930/ be Rs.49,39,21,930/-. However, the final assessment order was passed by the ment order was passed by the AO on 27 February 2015, which according to the Tribunal is beyond the period of AO on 27 February 2015, which according to the Tribunal is beyond the period of AO on 27 February 2015, which according to the Tribunal is beyond the period of one month from the end of the month in which the directions were received. The one month from the end of the month in which the directions were received. The one month from the end of the month in which the directions were received. The said period of one month from the end of the month in which the directions of the said period of one month from the end of the month in which the dire said period of one month from the end of the month in which the dire DRP were received expired on 31 January 2015. But since the final assessment DRP were received expired on 31 January 2015. But since the final assessment DRP were received expired on 31 January 2015. But since the final assessment order was passed on 27 February 2015, the Tribunal held the same to be barred order was passed on 27 February 2015, the Tribunal held the same to be barred order was passed on 27 February 2015, the Tribunal held the same to be barred by limitation. 36. In our view, on a plain reading of Section 144C (13), the final assessment 36. In our view, on a plain reading of Section 144C (13), the final asse 36. In our view, on a plain reading of Section 144C (13), the final asse order ought to have been passed latest by 31 January 2015 since the directions order ought to have been passed latest by 31 January 2015 since the directions order ought to have been passed latest by 31 January 2015 since the directions of the DRP were received by the AO on 23 December 2014. However, since the of the DRP were received by the AO on 23 December 2014. However, since the of the DRP were received by the AO on 23 December 2014. However, since the final assessment order was passed on 27 February 2015 which is beyond the final assessment order was passed on 27 February 2015 which is beyond the final assessment order was passed on 27 February 2015 which is beyond the expiry of one month f expiry of one month from the end of the month in which the directions were rom the end of the month in which the directions were received, in our view, the assessment order dated 27 February 2015 passed received, in our view, the assessment order dated 27 February 2015 passed received, in our view, the assessment order dated 27 February 2015 passed under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144C (13) of the Act is beyond the under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144C (13) of the Act is beyond the under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144C (13) of the Act is beyond the limitation period provided and, therefore, the assess limitation period provided and, therefore, the assessment order is bad in law. ment order is bad in law. 37. We may observe, although not argued by any of the parties, that the period 37. We may observe, although not argued by any of the parties, that the period 37. We may observe, although not argued by any of the parties, that the period provided under Section 144C (13) cannot be counted from the end of the month in provided under Section 144C (13) cannot be counted from the end of the month in provided under Section 144C (13) cannot be counted from the end of the month in which the TPO’s order dated 27 January 2015 were received. We say so for more which the TPO’s order dated 27 January 2015 were received. We say so fo which the TPO’s order dated 27 January 2015 were received. We say so fo than one reason. Firstly, since the TPO’s order is pursuant to the DRP’s direction than one reason. Firstly, since the TPO’s order is pursuant to the DRP’s direction than one reason. Firstly, since the TPO’s order is pursuant to the DRP’s direction which was received much before 31 January 2015 and there is no justification for which was received much before 31 January 2015 and there is no justification for which was received much before 31 January 2015 and there is no justification for the AO not to have passed the assessment order before 31 January 2015. the AO not to have passed the assessment order before 31 January 2015. the AO not to have passed the assessment order before 31 January 2015. Secondly, the date of TPO’s order pursuant to the DRP’s directions cannot be date of TPO’s order pursuant to the DRP’s directions cannot be date of TPO’s order pursuant to the DRP’s directions cannot be counted as a starting date since sub counted as a starting date since sub-section (13) of Section 144C provides for the section (13) of Section 144C provides for the starting period to commence for the purpose of completion of the assessment as starting period to commence for the purpose of completion of the assessment as starting period to commence for the purpose of completion of the assessment as the end of the month in which t the end of the month in which the directions of the DRP were received by the AO. he directions of the DRP were received by the AO. If the TPO’s order dated 27 January 2015 is considered to be the starting point If the TPO’s order dated 27 January 2015 is considered to be the starting point If the TPO’s order dated 27 January 2015 is considered to be the starting point for the purpose of Section 144C (13), then we would be reading into the said for the purpose of Section 144C (13), then we would be reading into the said for the purpose of Section 144C (13), then we would be reading into the said section something which is not there and it is se section something which is not there and it is settled position that the Court ttled position that the Court cannot re-draft the provisions of the law. The provision of Section 144C (13) has draft the provisions of the law. The provision of Section 144C (13) has draft the provisions of the law. The provision of Section 144C (13) has to be read as it stands in the statute book. Provisions of Sections 144C (6) and to be read as it stands in the statute book. Provisions of Sections 144C (6) and to be read as it stands in the statute book. Provisions of Sections 144C (6) and 144C (7) requires the DRP to carry out enquiry before any directions under 144C (7) requires the DRP to carry out enquiry before any direc 144C (7) requires the DRP to carry out enquiry before any direc Section 144C (5) are issued to the AO. This clearly shows post Section 144C (5) Section 144C (5) are issued to the AO. This clearly shows post Section 144C (5) Section 144C (5) are issued to the AO. This clearly shows post Section 144C (5) directions, no authority other than AO intervenes. Therefore, looked from any directions, no authority other than AO intervenes. Therefore, looked from any directions, no authority other than AO intervenes. Therefore, looked from any angle, in our view, the final assessment order made on 27 February 2015 is angle, in our view, the final assessment order made on 27 February 2015 is angle, in our view, the final assessment order made on 27 February 2015 is beyond the limitation period provided under Section 144C (13) of the Act. limitation period provided under Section 144C (13) of the Act. limitation period provided under Section 144C (13) of the Act. 38. It is also important to note that the period of Section 144C (13) cannot be 38. It is also important to note that the period of Section 144C (13) cannot be 38. It is also important to note that the period of Section 144C (13) cannot be counted from the end of the month in which the transfer pricing officer gives effect counted from the end of the month in which the transfer pricing officer gives effect counted from the end of the month in which the transfer pricing officer gives effect

SkillNet Solutions India 6 Private Limited, ITA No. 1023/MUM/2026

of the direction of the DRP of the direction of the DRP under Section 144C (5) of the Act. This is so because under Section 144C (5) of the Act. This is so because Section 153 (5A) provides that the assessment pursuant to the TPO giving effect Section 153 (5A) provides that the assessment pursuant to the TPO giving effect Section 153 (5A) provides that the assessment pursuant to the TPO giving effect of the order or direction under Section 263 should be completed within two of the order or direction under Section 263 should be completed within two of the order or direction under Section 263 should be completed within two months from the end of the month in which such months from the end of the month in which such an order of the TPO received. If an order of the TPO received. If the intention of the legislature was to calculate the time limit provided under the intention of the legislature was to calculate the time limit provided under the intention of the legislature was to calculate the time limit provided under Section 144C (13) to start from the TPO’s order giving effect to the direction under Section 144C (13) to start from the TPO’s order giving effect to the direction under Section 144C (13) to start from the TPO’s order giving effect to the direction under Section 144C (5) then there would have been a similar prov Section 144C (5) then there would have been a similar provision like Section 153 ision like Section 153 (5A) of the Act. Therefore, even on this count post direction of the DRP, the AO has (5A) of the Act. Therefore, even on this count post direction of the DRP, the AO has (5A) of the Act. Therefore, even on this count post direction of the DRP, the AO has to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the direction of the DRP are received which would include any intervening the direction of the DRP are received which would include any interve the direction of the DRP are received which would include any interve exercise if at all required to be done. exercise if at all required to be done. Decisions relied by the Respondent Assessee : Decisions relied by the Respondent Assessee : 39. Mr Pardiwalla is justified in relying upon the decision of this Court in the case 39. Mr Pardiwalla is justified in relying upon the decision of this Court in the case 39. Mr Pardiwalla is justified in relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Vodafone Idea Ltd. (supra) wherein the Co of Vodafone Idea Ltd. (supra) wherein the Co-ordinate bench of this Court held ordinate bench of this Court held that Section 144C is a self contained provision which carves out a separate class that Section 144C is a self contained provision which carves out a separate class that Section 144C is a self contained provision which carves out a separate class of assessee and if the provisions of Section 144C of the Act as mandated by the of assessee and if the provisions of Section 144C of the Act as mandated by the of assessee and if the provisions of Section 144C of the Act as mandated by the stature are not strictly adhered to, the entire object of providing alternate stature are not strictly adhered to, the entire object of providing alternate stature are not strictly adhered to, the entire object of providing alternate redressal mechanism in the form of the DRP stands defeated, which is not the ism in the form of the DRP stands defeated, which is not the ism in the form of the DRP stands defeated, which is not the intention of the legislature while inserting this Section. The Co-ordinate bench, intention of the legislature while inserting this Section. The Co intention of the legislature while inserting this Section. The Co further, observed that once the statute has prescribed the limitation period for further, observed that once the statute has prescribed the limitation period for further, observed that once the statute has prescribed the limitation period for passing the final order, it is e passing the final order, it is expected that the internal procedure of the xpected that the internal procedure of the department to mold itself to give meaning to and act in aid of the provision. The department to mold itself to give meaning to and act in aid of the provision. The department to mold itself to give meaning to and act in aid of the provision. The Co-ordinate bench further came to the conclusion that failure on the part of the ordinate bench further came to the conclusion that failure on the part of the ordinate bench further came to the conclusion that failure on the part of the department to follow the procedure under Section 1 department to follow the procedure under Section 144C of the Act is not merely a 44C of the Act is not merely a procedural irregularity but is an illegality and vitiates the entire proceeding. In procedural irregularity but is an illegality and vitiates the entire proceeding. In procedural irregularity but is an illegality and vitiates the entire proceeding. In our view, the ratio of the decision of the Co our view, the ratio of the decision of the Co-ordinate bench in the case of ordinate bench in the case of Vodafone Idea Ltd. (supra) squarely applies to the interpretation of whether the Vodafone Idea Ltd. (supra) squarely applies to the interpretation Vodafone Idea Ltd. (supra) squarely applies to the interpretation provision of Section 144C (13) is mandatory or directory and, therefore, it is to be provision of Section 144C (13) is mandatory or directory and, therefore, it is to be provision of Section 144C (13) is mandatory or directory and, therefore, it is to be held that Section 144C (13) of the Act time limit is mandatory. held that Section 144C (13) of the Act time limit is mandatory. held that Section 144C (13) of the Act time limit is mandatory. 40. Mr. Pardiwalla, learned senior counsel for the respondent-assessee is 40. Mr. Pardiwalla, learned senior counsel for the respondent 40. Mr. Pardiwalla, learned senior counsel for the respondent justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of ing reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of ing reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Louis Dreyfus Company India (P) Ltd. (supra). The facts of the present case before Louis Dreyfus Company India (P) Ltd. (supra). The facts of the present case before Louis Dreyfus Company India (P) Ltd. (supra). The facts of the present case before us are very close and similar to the facts before the Delhi High Court. Before the us are very close and similar to the facts before the Delhi High Court. Before the us are very close and similar to the facts before the Delhi High Court. Before the Delhi High Court, the Delhi High Court, the TPO proposed adjustments of Rs.25.82 crore which found TPO proposed adjustments of Rs.25.82 crore which found its place in the draft assessment order. The assessee filed objections before the its place in the draft assessment order. The assessee filed objections before the its place in the draft assessment order. The assessee filed objections before the DRP and the DRP ultimately passed an order on 20 June 2022 affirming the DRP and the DRP ultimately passed an order on 20 June 2022 affirming the DRP and the DRP ultimately passed an order on 20 June 2022 affirming the transfer pricing adjustments made to the incom transfer pricing adjustments made to the income of the assessee. The said e of the assessee. The said directions were uploaded on the Income Tax Business Application portal on 24 directions were uploaded on the Income Tax Business Application portal on 24 directions were uploaded on the Income Tax Business Application portal on 24 June 2022. Pursuant to the directions framed by the DRP, the TPO by an order June 2022. Pursuant to the directions framed by the DRP, the TPO by an order June 2022. Pursuant to the directions framed by the DRP, the TPO by an order dated 25 July 2022 revised the transfer pricing adjustments to Rs.20.24 crore dated 25 July 2022 revised the transfer pricing adjustments to Rs.20.24 cr dated 25 July 2022 revised the transfer pricing adjustments to Rs.20.24 cr and the assessment order came to be passed on 24 August 2022. On these facts, and the assessment order came to be passed on 24 August 2022. On these facts, and the assessment order came to be passed on 24 August 2022. On these facts, it was the contention of the revenue that the limitation period provided under it was the contention of the revenue that the limitation period provided under it was the contention of the revenue that the limitation period provided under Section 144C (13) should be counted from the date of TPO’s order dated 25 July Section 144C (13) should be counted from the date of TPO’s order dated 25 July Section 144C (13) should be counted from the date of TPO’s order dated 25 July

SkillNet Solutions India 7 Private Limited, ITA No. 1023/MUM/2026

2022 and therefore, the assessment order was passed within the limitation re, the assessment order was passed within the limitation re, the assessment order was passed within the limitation period provided under Section 144C (13). The Delhi High Court after examining period provided under Section 144C (13). The Delhi High Court after examining period provided under Section 144C (13). The Delhi High Court after examining the scheme of Section 144C and after relying upon the decision of this Court in the scheme of Section 144C and after relying upon the decision of this Court in the scheme of Section 144C and after relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Vodafone Idea Ltd. (supra) r the case of Vodafone Idea Ltd. (supra) rejected the contention of the revenue and ejected the contention of the revenue and observed that the procedure of assessment as provided under Section 144C does observed that the procedure of assessment as provided under Section 144C does observed that the procedure of assessment as provided under Section 144C does not envisage or contemplate the interdiction or involvement of the TPO once a not envisage or contemplate the interdiction or involvement of the TPO once a not envisage or contemplate the interdiction or involvement of the TPO once a directive has been framed by the DRP. The Delhi High Court directive has been framed by the DRP. The Delhi High Court further observed that further observed that the role of the TPO comes to an end once an order as contemplated under Section the role of the TPO comes to an end once an order as contemplated under Section the role of the TPO comes to an end once an order as contemplated under Section 92 CA(4) of the Act is framed and remitted to the AO. In our view, even on this 92 CA(4) of the Act is framed and remitted to the AO. In our view, even on this 92 CA(4) of the Act is framed and remitted to the AO. In our view, even on this count following the decision of the Delhi High Court, the assessment order passed count following the decision of the Delhi High Court, the assessment orde count following the decision of the Delhi High Court, the assessment orde on 27 February 2015 is barred by limitation. on 27 February 2015 is barred by limitation. 41. Mr. Pardiwalla is also justified in placing reliance on the decision of this Court 41. Mr. Pardiwalla is also justified in placing reliance on the decision of this Court 41. Mr. Pardiwalla is also justified in placing reliance on the decision of this Court in case of Renaissance Services BV (supra) where again the final assessment in case of Renaissance Services BV (supra) where again the final assessment in case of Renaissance Services BV (supra) where again the final assessment order passed beyond the time limit pres order passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 144C (4) was held to cribed under Section 144C (4) was held to be bad in law since the same was passed after the limitation period expired be bad in law since the same was passed after the limitation period expired be bad in law since the same was passed after the limitation period expired under Section 144C (4) of the Act. under Section 144C (4) of the Act. Decisions relied by the Appellant Decisions relied by the Appellant-Revenue : 42. We now deal with the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the 42. We now deal with the decisions relied upon by the learn 42. We now deal with the decisions relied upon by the learn appellant-revenue. In the case of APM Terminals India(P) Ltd. (supra), the final revenue. In the case of APM Terminals India(P) Ltd. (supra), the final revenue. In the case of APM Terminals India(P) Ltd. (supra), the final assessment order dated 30 December 2023 was challenged by the assessee. The assessment order dated 30 December 2023 was challenged by the assessee. The assessment order dated 30 December 2023 was challenged by the assessee. The argument of the assessee was that although the assessee had filed objections argument of the assessee was that although the assessee had filed objections argument of the assessee was that although the assessee had filed objections with the DRP, the AO proceeded to pass the assessment order. The argument of h the DRP, the AO proceeded to pass the assessment order. The argument of h the DRP, the AO proceeded to pass the assessment order. The argument of the revenue was that the copy of the objections filed by the assessee was not the revenue was that the copy of the objections filed by the assessee was not the revenue was that the copy of the objections filed by the assessee was not made available to the AO. However, the AO admitted in the assessment order made available to the AO. However, the AO admitted in the assessment order made available to the AO. However, the AO admitted in the assessment order that the objections were avai that the objections were available on the portal. The Court observed that the AO lable on the portal. The Court observed that the AO cannot be faulted for passing the impugned order but however, since the cannot be faulted for passing the impugned order but however, since the cannot be faulted for passing the impugned order but however, since the objections were filed with the DRP and the Officer was bound to comply with the objections were filed with the DRP and the Officer was bound to comply with the objections were filed with the DRP and the Officer was bound to comply with the directions of the DRP, the assessment order was set directions of the DRP, the assessment order was set aside. We fail to understand aside. We fail to understand as to how this decision can be of any assistance to the appellant-revenue. The as to how this decision can be of any assistance to the appellant as to how this decision can be of any assistance to the appellant facts and the issue before the Co facts and the issue before the Co-ordinate Bench was different than what we are ordinate Bench was different than what we are called upon to adjudicate. Therefore, reliance placed on the decision in the case of called upon to adjudicate. Therefore, reliance placed on the decisio called upon to adjudicate. Therefore, reliance placed on the decisio APM Terminals India (P) Ltd. (supra) by the appellant APM Terminals India (P) Ltd. (supra) by the appellant-revenue is misconceived. revenue is misconceived. 43. Similarly, on very similar facts as that in the case of APM Terminals India (P) 43. Similarly, on very similar facts as that in the case of APM Terminals India (P) 43. Similarly, on very similar facts as that in the case of APM Terminals India (P) Ltd (supra), the decision relied upon by the appellantrevenue in the case of Sulzer Ltd (supra), the decision relied upon by the appellantrevenue in the case of Ltd (supra), the decision relied upon by the appellantrevenue in the case of Pumps India (P) Ltd. (supra) is also not applicable to the facts before us. Pumps India (P) Ltd. (supra) is also not applicable to the facts before us. Pumps India (P) Ltd. (supra) is also not applicable to the facts before us. 44. Learned counsel for the appellant 44. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue has placed for our consideration revenue has placed for our consideration the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of . Himlaya Drug the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of . Himlaya Drug the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of . Himlaya Drug Company v. Dy. CIT [2018] 95 taxmann.com 574 (Bengaluru Dy. CIT [2018] 95 taxmann.com 574 (Bengaluru – Trib.) / [I. T. (T.P.) Dy. CIT [2018] 95 taxmann.com 574 (Bengaluru A. No.807/Bang/2016 ]for the proposition that non A. No.807/Bang/2016 ]for the proposition that non-compliance of Section 144C compliance of Section 144C (13) would not vitiate the assessment order and it is only a procedural (13) would not vitiate the assessment order and it is only a procedural (13) would not vitiate the assessment order and it is only a procedural irregularity. We are informed that th irregularity. We are informed that the appeal against the said order is pending e appeal against the said order is pending before the Karnataka High Court. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this before the Karnataka High Court. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this before the Karnataka High Court. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this

SkillNet Solutions India 8 Private Limited, ITA No. 1023/MUM/2026

Court to comment on the same since it would amount to giving our views on Court to comment on the same since it would amount to giving our views on Court to comment on the same since it would amount to giving our views on matter which is not before us. matter which is not before us. Further Decisions relied by Further Decisions relied by the Court : 45. Very recently, the Telangana High Court in the case of Rapiscan Systems (P) 45. Very recently, the Telangana High Court in the case of Rapiscan Systems (P) 45. Very recently, the Telangana High Court in the case of Rapiscan Systems (P) Ltd. v. ADIT (Int. Tax) [2025] 170 taxmann.com 753 (TELANGANA) have also Ltd. v. ADIT (Int. Tax) [2025] 170 taxmann.com 753 (TELANGANA) have also Ltd. v. ADIT (Int. Tax) [2025] 170 taxmann.com 753 (TELANGANA) have also taken a view that provisions of Section 144C (13) is mandatory although fact taken a view that provisions of Section 144C (13) is mandatory although fact taken a view that provisions of Section 144C (13) is mandatory although fact situation before the Telangana High Court was as to when can AO he said to ore the Telangana High Court was as to when can AO he said to ore the Telangana High Court was as to when can AO he said to have received the directions of the DRP if same are uploaded on the portal. have received the directions of the DRP if same are uploaded on the portal. have received the directions of the DRP if same are uploaded on the portal. 46. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Mavenir Uk Holdings [2024] 167 46. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Mavenir Uk Holdings [2024] 167 46. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Mavenir Uk Holdings [2024] 167 taxmann.com 321/301 Taxman 340 (Delhi) h taxmann.com 321/301 Taxman 340 (Delhi) had an occasion to consider provision ad an occasion to consider provision of Section 144C (4) which requires the AO to pass within one month from the end of Section 144C (4) which requires the AO to pass within one month from the end of Section 144C (4) which requires the AO to pass within one month from the end of the month in which the assessee intimates his acceptance to draft order or of the month in which the assessee intimates his acceptance to draft order or of the month in which the assessee intimates his acceptance to draft order or does not file objections with DRP and period for such filing expires. The Delhi does not file objections with DRP and period for such filing does not file objections with DRP and period for such filing High Court held any order passed after the period provided under Section 144C High Court held any order passed after the period provided under Section 144C High Court held any order passed after the period provided under Section 144C (4) is bad-in-law. 47. The Kerala High Court in the case of Allianz Cornhill Information Services (P) 47. The Kerala High Court in the case of Allianz Cornhill Information Services (P) 47. The Kerala High Court in the case of Allianz Cornhill Information Services (P) LTD. v. Union of India 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 11076 held that provisions of LTD. v. Union of India 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 11076 held tha LTD. v. Union of India 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 11076 held tha Section 144C (13) and time Section 144C (13) and time-limit provided therein is not a procedural irregularity limit provided therein is not a procedural irregularity but mandatory and therefore, order passed beyond the time provided therein is but mandatory and therefore, order passed beyond the time provided therein is but mandatory and therefore, order passed beyond the time provided therein is barred by limitation. barred by limitation. 48. Before parting we may observe that we have not been shown any judgment 48. Before parting we may observe that we have not been s 48. Before parting we may observe that we have not been s of the High Court which has taken contrary view. of the High Court which has taken contrary view. Conclusion : 49. Importance of time : 49. Importance of time :  Ask runner who looses the medal by fraction of second ; Ask runner who looses the medal by fraction of second ; Ask runner who looses the medal by fraction of second ;  Ask doctor who can’t reach patient on time; Ask doctor who can’t reach patient on time;  Ask student who looses Ask student who looses medical seat because of delay in uploading medical seat because of delay in uploading the form by few minutes ; the form by few minutes ;  Time is too precious. You may delay but time will not. World is Time is too precious. You may delay but time will not. World is Time is too precious. You may delay but time will not. World is running after time in this era of competition and we can’t be lagging running after time in this era of competition and we can’t be lagging running after time in this era of competition and we can’t be lagging behind in making our Country as one of the best to discharge the behind in making our Country as one of the best to d behind in making our Country as one of the best to d duties in time for ease of doing business. The phrase ‘time and tide duties in time for ease of doing business. The phrase ‘time and tide duties in time for ease of doing business. The phrase ‘time and tide wait for no man’ emphasises that nothing is more precious than wait for no man’ emphasises that nothing is more precious than wait for no man’ emphasises that nothing is more precious than time moreso in this global competitive world. time moreso in this global competitive world. 50. In view of the above, we dismiss the revenue’s appeal and answer the 50. In view of the above, we dismiss the revenue’s appeal and ans 50. In view of the above, we dismiss the revenue’s appeal and ans questions raised and admitted in the appeal against the appellant-revenue and in questions raised and admitted in the appeal against the appellant questions raised and admitted in the appeal against the appellant favour of the respondent favour of the respondent-assessee. However, our judgment would not preclude assessee. However, our judgment would not preclude

SkillNet Solutions India 9 Private Limited, ITA No. 1023/MUM/2026

the appellant-revenue to take fresh proceedings if so available in accordance with revenue to take fresh proceedings if so available in accordance with revenue to take fresh proceedings if so available in accordance with law for assessing the respondent assessing the respondent-assessee.”

8.

Respectfully following the binding decision of the Hon’ble Respectfully following the binding decision of the Hon’ble Respectfully following the binding decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Jurisdictional High Court in Sterling Oil Resources Ltd. Sterling Oil Resources Ltd. (supra), we hold that the impugned assessment order dated 27.12.2025 having hold that the impugned assessment order dated 27.12.2025 having hold that the impugned assessment order dated 27.12.2025 having been passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under been passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under been passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 144C(13) of the Act is barred by limitation and consequently section 144C(13) of the Act is barred by limitation and consequently section 144C(13) of the Act is barred by limitation and consequently void ab initio. The same is accordingly quashed. . The same is accordingly quashed. . The same is accordingly quashed. Since the assessment order itself does not survive, all consequential assessment order itself does not survive, all consequential assessment order itself does not survive, all consequential proceedings arising therefrom also stand annulled. The remaining proceedings arising therefrom also stand annulled. The remaining proceedings arising therefrom also stand annulled. The remaining grounds raised in the appeal are rendered academic and do not call grounds raised in the appeal are rendered academic and do not call grounds raised in the appeal are rendered academic and do not call for adjudication

9.

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed allowed as indicated above.

Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 20/05/2026. /05/2026.

Sd/- - Sd/ Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 20/05/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S. M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

SkillNet Solutions India 10 Private Limited, ITA No. 1023/MUM/2026

Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →