M/S.VERSUNI INDIA HOME SOLUTIONS LTD. - FORMERLY KNOWN AS PHILIPS DOMESTIC APPLIANCES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2091/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2026AY 2020-20218 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was barred by limitation because it was served on the assessee after the prescribed time limit. The date of 'issuance' or 'completion' of an order, especially in the context of e-assessment, is when it is dispatched or communicated, not merely when it is signed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment order for AY 2020-21. The crucial issue is whether the final assessment order, dated July 31, 2024, was time-barred as it was served on the assessee only on August 21, 2024.

What were the issues?

Whether the final assessment order was passed within the statutory limitation period, considering the date of signing versus the date of service on the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, AR
For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Hearing: 25.02.2026Pronounced: 20.05.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the DC/ACIT TP 2, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 11.07.2024 for the AY 2020-21.

2.

At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed ground no.2, which is extracted below:-

“Order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 31 July 2024 (served to appellant on 21 August 2024) is bad in law being time barred (Refer our detailed grounds of appeal on this issue)”

SL No. Date Events Running page number in the appeal set 1. 21-Jul-2023 Order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act 152-205 passed by the Transfer Pricing officer 2. 27-Sepp-2023 Draft Assessment Order passed under 144-151 Section 144C of the Act 3. 25-Oct-2023 Application Form in 35A alongwith 41-143 Objections filed by the assessee before the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 4. 27-Jun-2024 Directions issued by the DRP under section 24-40 144C(5) of the Act. 5. 11-Jul-2024 Order passed by the TPO giving effect to the 14-21 Directions of the Hon'ble DRP 6. 21-Aug-2024 Order dated 31 July 2024 passed under 9-13 section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) Email is on page No. served on the Appellant vide email 22 of the appeal set. 4. On the basis of the above sequence of events, it is argued and submitted that since the Hon'ble DRP had issued its Directions under section 144C(5) on 27 June 2024, the Assessing Officer was required to "Complete" the Final Assessment Order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP directions are received i.e, the Final Assessment Order ought to have been passed by 31 July 2024. 1961.

7.

Then ld. AR submitted that instead, in the said report, the Ld. AO further stated that the provisions of section 144C(13) does not mandate that the Final Assessment order is required to be "served or intimated to the assessee company and only requires that the order be "completed" withing the time limit as per the Act. That completion, it is argued is only "signing" of the Order. The ld. AR submitted and it will be appreciated that it is not in accordance with the law laid down by the

12.

It may be seen therefore, that, if an authority is Authorised to exercise a power or do an act affecting the rights of parties, he shall exercise that power within the period of limitation prescribed therefore. The order or decision of such authority comes into force or, becomes operative or becomes an effective order or decision on and from the date when it is signed by him. The date of such order or decision is the date on which the order or decision was passed or made: that is to say when he ceases to have any authority to tear it off and draft a different order and when he ceases to have any locus poenitentiae. Normally that happens when the order or decision is made public or notified in some form or when it can be said to have left his hand. The date of communication of the order to the party whose rights are affected is not the relevant date for purposes ofdetermining whether the power has been exercised within the prescribed time. 8. Further, reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the following cases wherein the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has be applied/followed and it has been duly held that an order if dispatched post the statutory limitation date and if no substantial records are available to prove that they were dispatched before the limitation date, then such orders is invalid and barred by law of limitation.

• Maharaja Shopping Complex v/s. DCIT (ITA No. 832/2008); and

• CIT v/s. BJ N Hotels Ltd [2017] 79 taxmann.com 336 (Karnataka).

9.

Here, it would not be out of place to also refer to the E- Assessment Scheme, 2019, notified by CBDT in terms of the assessment proceedings were carried out. Reference can be made to Rule 10 of the said Scheme which prescribes the

"10. Delivery of electronic record.--(1) Every notice or order or any other electronic communication under this Scheme shall be delivered to the addressee, being the assessee, by way of- (a) placing an authenticated copy thereof in the assessee's registered account; or (b) sending an authenticated copy thereof to the registered email address of theassessee or his authorised representative; or (c) uploading an authenticated copy on the assessee's Mobile App; and followed by a real time alert. (2) Every notice or order or any other electronic communication under this Scheme shall be delivered to the addressee, being any other person, by sending an authenticated copy thereof to the registered email address of such person, followed by a real time alert. (3) The Assessee shall file his response to any notice or order or any other electronic communication, under this Scheme, through his registered account, and once an acknowledgement is sent by the National e-assessment Centre containing the hash result generated upon successful submission of response, the response shall be deemed to be authenticated. (4) The time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic record shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000)." 10. In the instant case, the said Final Assessment Order dated 31 July 2024 was emailed to the Appellant only 21 August 2024 (albeit without a real time alert) and hence for the first time the same was delivered to the Appellant only that date which is clearly and admittedly beyond the due date prescribed in section 144C (13) of the Act thereby rendering the same barred by limitation.

11.

Further, Rule 9 of the said Scheme prescribes for authentication of electronic record, the same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

• Outsytems Singapore Pte. Ltd. v/s. DCIT [2025] 181 taxmann.com 743 (dated 10 December 2025)

• Navyug Technologies Private Ltd. v/s. ITO (ITA No. 4579/Del/2024 dated 16 February 2026)

13.

During the course of hearing on 25th February 2026, the Ld. DR also relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal -vs.- Income Tax Officer [2022] 143 taxmann.com 11 (Delhi) to contend that the Order is validly passed.

14.

We note that said reliance is misconceived and the said decision in fact supports the Appellant's contention. The said decision was rendered in the context of issuance of notice under section 148 read with section 149, where the expression used is "shall be issued" within the prescribed period of limitation. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court categorically held that mere generation or signing of a notice does not amount to issuance and that "despatch" is sine qua non for issuance. The Hon'ble High Court has further clarified that a notice is said to be issued only when it leaves the control of

25.12 The review of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court and the several High Courts shows that all Courts have consistently held that the expression 'issue' in its common parlance and its legal interpretation means that the issuer of the notice must after drawing up the notice and signing the notice, make an overt act to ensure due despatch of the notice to the addressee. It is only upon due despatch, that the notice can be said to have been 'issued'. ---- 26.21 We therefore answer question no. (II) in affirmative and hold that despatch as per Section 13 of the Act of 2000, is a sine qua non and happens when the electronic mall message leaves the ITBA's servers. 15. Applying the said ratio to the present case, the Assessment Order, though dated 31 July 2024, was admittedly served only on 21 August 2024, hence the same can be said to have been passed only when it is put beyond the control of the Assessing Officer which is (in terms of Rule 10) by way of dispatch /communication and not when it is merely signed or dated. In view of the foregoing facts and discussion, we opine that Assessment Order passed on 31 July is clearly barred by limitation as the same was served on the Appellant for the only on 21 August 2024.

16.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 20.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 20.05.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

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 →