EXPRESS FREIGHT RAILWAY CONSORTIUM,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 28(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITTPA 78/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 August 2026AY 2022-2317 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal primarily on the ground that the assessment order was passed beyond the statutory time limit. The Tribunal noted that the DRP had issued directions on 28.10.2025 and uploaded them through the ITBA portal. Based on the ratio of the Delhi High Court's decisions in Louis Dreyfus and Fiber home India Private Limited, the Tribunal held that the period of limitation under Section 144C(13) of the Act is computed from the date of uploading the DRP's directions on the ITBA portal. In this case, the directions were passed on 28.10.2025, meaning the assessment order should have been passed on or before 30.11.2025. However, the order was actually passed on 24.12.2025, which is beyond the prescribed limit. Consequently, the assessment order was held to be beyond jurisdiction and barred by limitation. The Tribunal set aside the impugned assessment order. The remaining grounds of appeal were rendered academic and were left open.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Express Freight Railway Consortium (EFRC), is appealing an assessment order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the DCIT, Circle 28 (1), New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2022-23. This order was issued pursuant to directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a consortium comprising Mitsui & Co. Ltd., Ircon International Limited, and Tata Projects Limited, formed for a works contract. EFRC paid Mitsui a Lead Member Fee of INR 9,51,00,800/- (2.5% of the contract price) for technical expertise, supervision, and brand value. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made an upward adjustment of INR 9,51,00,800/- to the assessee's income, determining the arm's length price (ALP) at 0.80%. The DRP issued directions on 28.10.2025. The final assessment order was passed on 24.12.2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the final assessment order dated 24.12.2025 is barred by statutory time limits prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rendering it time-barred and liable for quashing? Assessee's Contention: The Learned AR argued that the assessment order was passed beyond the statutory time limit. The DRP's directions were uploaded on 27.04.2022, and as per Section 144C(13), the assessment should have been completed by 31.05.2022. However, the order was passed on 30.06.2022, making it time-barred. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court decision in G.S Chatha Rice Mills and the Delhi High Court's decision in Louis Dreyfus. Revenue's Contention: The Learned DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 2. Whether the Learned Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer erred in making an adjustment of INR 9,51,00,800/- to the Lead Member Fee, which the assessee contended was at arm's length? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the Lead Member Fee was inherently at arm's length as pricing was negotiated between three unrelated parties. They also argued that the TPO/DRP erred in rejecting comparables and not following DRP directions to consider brand royalty agreements. The assessee also proposed additional comparables and argued that the 'Other Method' was the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) as strict comparability was not achievable. Revenue's Contention: The Learned DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144C(13),Section 144B,Section 144C(5),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234D,Section 244A,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 04.06.2026Pronounced: 19.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.78/DEL/2026 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Express Freight Railway Consortium, vs. DCIT, Circle 28 (1), Room No.221, Ircon International Ltd., Delhi. C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. (PAN : AABAE0055F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Bhopal Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 04.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 19.08.2026 O R D E R PER S.RIFAURRAHMAN,AM: 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the DCIT, Circle 28 (1), New Delhi under section 143(3) read with section 144(C)(13)r.w.s. 144Bof the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for Assessment Year 2022-23 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C (5) of the Act raising following grounds of appeal :-

2 ITA No.78/DEL/2026

A. Legal Grounds 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned AO) has erred in issuing the final assessment order beyond the statutory time limits prescribed under Section 144C(13) of/he Income Tax Act. The delay in passing the order renders the final assessment order time barred. Consequently, the order should be quashed, and any adjustments made therein should be deleted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer (Learned TPO) erred in making an adjustment to the tune of INR 9,51,00,800/- even after accepting that payment of the Lead Member Fees is at arm's length basis the agreements submitted by the Appellant & taking into consideration al/ the relevant factors in the order giving effect to the directions of Hon'ble DRP and is therefore a mistake apparent from record. B. Transfer Pricing Grounds - Payment of Lead Member Fee 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 & 2 & on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned AO/TPO has erred in rejecting the agreements selected by the Appellant despite the fact that the services availed by the contracting parties in those agreements are also being availed by the Appellant and its AE and that the Appellant had applied Other Method to benchmark its transaction primarily due to the fact that strict comparability of agreements cannot be attained in such a scenario. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 & 2 & on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer/TPO has erred in not following the directions passed by Hon'ble DRP wherein the Hon'ble DRP directed to consider brand royalty agreements in the search process with regard to the benefits received for using the brand value of Mitsui. 5. Without prejudice to the Ground No. 1 & 2 & on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee would like to propose certain additional comparables for your goodself's analysis.

3 ITA No.78/DEL/2026

6.

Without prejudice to the Ground No. 1 & 2 & on the facts and circumstances of the case, the transaction of Payment of Lead Member Fees is inherently at arm's length considering that the pricing negotiation for such transaction had been undertaken between three unrelated and independent parties at the time of forming of the Consortium. C. Corporate Tax Grounds 7. Without prejudice to the other grounds, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in applying the tax rate @ 40% on the total income determined instead of applicable tax rate @ 30% as all the members of Appellant sharing profit are resident of India. 8. Without prejudice to the other grounds, that on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO has erred in levying surcharge @ of 37% instead of 10% as applicable to the appellant post deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment. 9. Without prejudice to the other grounds, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO was not justified and erred in not granting credit of TDS to the tune of Rs.2,17,94,511/- while computing the total tax payable (refundable) under the Income Tax Act, 1961 without assigning any reason. 10. Without prejudice to the other grounds, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO was not justified and erred in law in levying interest u/s 234A amounting to INR 4,05,244/- while computing the total tax payable/(refundable) under the Act. 11. Without prejudice to the other grounds, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO was not justified and erred in law in levying interest u/s 234B amounting to INR 1,82,35,980/- while computing the total lax payable/(refundable) under the Act. 12. Without prejudice to the other grounds, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO was not justified

4 ITA No.78/DEL/2026

and erred in law in levying interest u/s 234D amounting to INR 14,35,917/- while computing the total tax payable under the Act. 13. Without prejudice to the other grounds, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO has erred in law in not granting interest under section 244A of the Act on the refund determined, which is mandatory and consequential in nature, and the Appellant is entitled to such Interest. O. Other Grounds 14. Without prejudice to the other grounds, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeals preferred by the Appellant.

2.

At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted the relevant facts of the case and submitted his submissions as under. He submitted that Express Freight Railway Consortium (‘Assessee’/ ‘EFRC’/ ‘AOP’)is a consortium comprising Mitsui& Co. Ltd. (‘Mitsui’), Ircon International Limited (‘Ircon’) and Tata Projects Limited (‘TPL’) which have entered into a works contract agreement with Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd., namely, package 11, that substantiate the division of work and profit sharing among the consortium members (‘agreement’).

3.

He further submitted that the tender had a pre-requirement to have a Japanese company on board, and therefore, TPL and Ircon entered into a consortium with Mitsui, which has sector leadership and expertise in

5 ITA No.78/DEL/2026

development of major international infrastructure projects.

4.

He submitted that Mitsui contributes to the works contract through technical expertise and supervision along with addition of brand value. For this, assessee has paid Mitsui a Lead member fee of Rs.9,51,00,800/- i.e., 2.5% of the contract price during the year. He submitted that there is no other profit attributed to Mitsui.

5.

Ld. AR further submitted the brief background of the case as under :

As per Transfer Pricing Study

Payment of lead member fee

6.

He submitted that based on the FAR profile of Mitsui and assessee, Mitsui was characterized as an entity providing technical supervision and brand. A summary of the FAR of assessee and Mitsui is given below:

S.N. Particulars EFRC Mitsui A. Functions 1. Use of brand name ✔ X ✔ 2. Identification of technical requirement X ✔ ✔ 3. Technical supervision and project management 4. Contractual communication ✔ ✔ B. Risks 5. Business Risk ✔ ✔ 6. Contractual Risk ✔ ✔

7.

He further submitted that since Comparable Uncontrolled Price (‘CUP’) Method requires strict comparability and such internal / external data was not available, Other Method was selected as Most Appropriate Method

6 ITA No.78/DEL/2026

(‘MAM’).

8.

He submitted that the assessee conducted a database search for comparable agreements relating to business services, administrative, consulting, IT & computer, programming, management, marketing & advertising, technical support & assistance, telecom, transportation and engineering. It selected 5 comparable agreements and determined arm’s length commission rate as 3.32%. He further submitted that Since lead member fees paid by Appellant, i.e., 2.50% of contract value were less than the ALP, transaction was justified to be at arm’s length.

9.

He brought to our notice the findings of TPO’s order dated 09.01.2025 and submitted that ld. TPO rejected 3 out of 5 comparables selected by assessee on the ground that they were dissimilar to the present facts and computed the ALP as 0.80% and referred to page 83-85 of appeal set. He submitted that accordingly, upward adjustment of Rs.9,51,00,800 was made to the income of assessee and referred page 86 of appeal set.

10.

Further, he brought to our notice the directions of ld. DRP dated 28.10.2025 relates to selection of comparables and submitted that ld. DRP directed the ld. TPO to re-analyse the comparable agreements while maintaining parity and referred to DRP Directions at page 28-29 of appeal set.

7 ITA No.78/DEL/2026

11.

He further submitted that additional comparables proposed by the assessee were rejected without assessing their comparability and referred to DRP Directions at page 36 of appeal set.

12.

With regard to inclusion of royalty agreements, he submitted that the ld. TPO has failed to consider royalty agreements in its search process with regards to benefits received with regard to brand value of Mitsui due to which the ALP would further go up and the ld. DRP directed the TPO to include royalty agreements for determination of ALP and referred to DRP Directions at page 30 of appeal set.

13.

Regarding pricing negotiated between unrelated parties, ld. AR submitted that since the Lead member fees was determined through negotiations between three unrelated parties at the time of formation of assessee/ Consortium (Mitsui, Ircon & TPL), the transaction is at arm’s length. He submitted that in this regard, ld. DRP held that since Mitsui is playing a crucial role in consortium towards technical expertise and supervision and brand value, it is an AE of assessee/Consortium. Accordingly, he submitted that ALP is required to be determined for this transaction and referred to page 38-39 of appeal set.

14.

Ld. AR further brought to our notice ld. TPO’s Order Giving Effect to Directions of Ld. DRP and submitted that a copy of Ld. TPO’s order giving effect to Ld. DRP’s directions has not been received by the

8 ITA No.78/DEL/2026

assessee. He further submitted that ld. TPO held that after re-evaluating the agreements and taking into account all relevant factors, including findings from earlier grounds, it has been concluded that the payment of Lead member fees is at arm’s length. The pricing was negotiated on an independent basis with third-party involvement and there are no discrepancies in the transaction that would necessitate an adjustment and referred to extracts of TPO’s OGE at page 16 of appeal set. He submitted that despite this finding, the ld. TPO held that there is no change in ALP for this transaction and the original determination remains valid and accordingly, the adjustment of Rs.9,51,00,800 was upheld and referred to extracts of TPO’s OGE at page 16 of appeal set.

15.

With regard to Ground No.1 i.e. assessment order is barred by limitation u/s 144C(13), ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 is barred by time limitation in terms of the statutory timeline mandated as per sub-section (13) to section 144C of the Act. He brought to our attention to the relevant provisions of the Act which is reproduced below for ready reference: -

“Reference to dispute resolution panel. 144C…(13) Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub- section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 or section 153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee,

9 ITA No.78/DEL/2026

within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received.”

16.

He submitted that as is manifest from the above provision, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 of the Act, the final assessment shall be completed within one month from the end of the month in which directions issued by the ld. DRP are received by the Assessing Officer.

17.

In this light, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the following dates are relevant to ascertain whether the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 is passed within prescribed timeframe mandated under the Act:

Date Particulars 28.10.2025 Date of DRP Directions as mentioned in the DRP directions 28.10.2025 Date of uploading of DRP Directions on ITBA Portal 28.10.2025 Date of DRP Directions as mentioned in TPO’s order giving effect (as extracted in final assessment order) 30.11.2025 Due date for AO to pass final assessment order under Section 144C(13) 24.12.2025 Date on which AO passed final assessment order

18.

He further submitted that from the above table, it is evident that the DRP directions have been issued in the month of October, 2025 and uploaded on ITBA Portal in the same month and hence, the service of the order to the AO stands completed on the date of such upload. Consequently, it was incumbent upon the AO to complete the assessment within one

10 ITA No.78/DEL/2026

month from the end of the month in which such directions were received by it in terms of Section 144C(13) of the Act which would end on November 30, 2025. He submitted that the final assessment order has however been passed in December, 2025 and therefore, is barred by limitation.

19.

In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s in Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited v. DCIT 13(1), [2024] 159 taxmann.com 244 (Delhi) as well as PCIT-1 v. M/s, ITA 91/2024/ [2024] 159 taxmann.com 772 (Delhi)wherein it was held that it is mandatory upon the assessing authority to complete the assessment as per the timelines prescribed as per provisions of sub-section (13) of section 144C of the Act, failing which assessment proceedings are barred by limitation and liable to be set aside. The relevant extract of judgement delivered in the case of Louis Dreyfus (supra) is reproduced below:

“20. Undisputedly, the directive of the DRP came to be uploaded on the ITBA portal on 24 June 2022. It is additionally stated to have been dispatched through Speed Post to the third respondent (TPO) and the fourth respondent (Additional/Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi) on 27 June 2022. It is thereafter that the TPO appears to have passed the order dated 25 July 2022.” 21. We, however note that paragraph 4(2) of the E-as, 2019 makes the following salient provisions:- "4(2). All communication among the assessment unit, review unit, verification unit or technical unit or with the assessee or

11 ITA No.78/DEL/2026

any other person with respect to the information or documents or evidence or any other details, as may be necessary for the purposes of making an assessment under this Scheme shall be through the National e-assessment Centre." 22. It is thus manifest that as per the provisions of E-as, 2019, all orders, notices and decisions have to be necessarily uploaded on the ITBA portal and as part of the larger faceless assessment regime which now holds the field. The uploading of the directive of the DRP on the ITBA portal would thus constitute valid and sufficient service and the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 144C(13) of the Act would be liable to be computed bearing that crucial date in mind. Once the aforesaid position becomes clear, it is evident that the order of assessment, if at all could have been framed lastly by 31 July 2022. There has thus been an abject failure on the part of the first respondent to comply with the mandatory timelines as incorporated in the aforenoted provisions. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned order of assessment and the consequential penalty proceedings are thus liable to be set aside on this short score alone. 23. The writ petition is allowed. The order of assessment dated 24 August 2022 as well as the penalty show cause notice dated 24 August 2022 are quashed and set aside. For reasons aforenoted and consequent to a failure on the part of the respondents to implement the directives of the DRP, the return as submitted by the petitioner would be deemed to have been accepted and the tax liability worked accordingly.”

20.

Further, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Hyundai Rotem Company, [2025] 180 taxmann.com 18 (Delhi)has explained as below:

“41. In fact, the intimation letter to respondent dated 26.05.2022 having a DIN number, would affirm that the same is the date of uploading of the DRP directions. The ITAT records a finding on the uploading of DRP directions on 26.05.2022 and the same has

12 ITA No.78/DEL/2026

not been disputed by the Revenue/appellant. As is noted from the affidavit filed before the Bombay High Court, it is in addition to the uploading that the DRP directions are sent through speed post to the AO. It follows, the plea that the physical copy of the DRP order was received only on 01.06.2022 is inconsequential; as the directions along with DIN were already uploaded and available on 26.05.2022. As such, the time for the AO to pass assessment order starts running from 01.06.2022, and expired on 30.06.2022.The assessment order in the present case having been made/passed on 01.07.2022, is clearly barred by limitation.”

21.

He further submitted that ITAT Delhi in the case of Honda R & D (India) (P.) Ltd, Gurgaon v ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi(ITA No. 1733/Del/2022) has extensively considered the issue and has held as follows:

“17. In the context of faceless assessment process time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic document (in this case DRP order) is required to be ascertained by reference to section 13 of Information Technology Act, 2000 which is the basis prescribed under section 144B of Income Tax Act also (refer section 144 B (6)(v)). Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of G.S Chatha Rice Mills (supra), interpreted this very provision. Applying principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, only relevant fact necessary for deciding Ground No. 4 in present appeal relating to time barred assessment, is time of uploading by DRP of DRP order onto ITBA portal. Intimation letter to DRP order unambiguously shows 27th April 2022 as date of uploading of DRP order. This fact cannot be disputed. Except this critical and relevant information everything else (like when order is visible to AO, date of uploading some document by DCIT/ACIT circle 2 (1) (1) Delhi) has been submitted by Respondents. It is fair to conclude that date of uploading DRP order on ITBA portal is 27.04.2022. As per section 144C(13) of the Act, assessment had to be completed on or before 31.05.2022. In present case the assessment is completed only on 30.6.2022 i.e., it is time barred null and void. Therefore, impugned assessment order dated 30.06.2022 is set aside being barred by

13 ITA No.78/DEL/2026

limitation. Other grounds having become academic in nature are left open.”

22.

He further placed reliance placed on the following decisions:-

a. Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. CPC, [2023] 459 ITR 413 (Bom.) (Bombay HC) b. Taeyang Metal India Private v. DCIT, [2024] 160 taxmann.com 536 (Madras) (Madras HC) c. Rapiscan Systems (P.) Ltd. v. ADIT, [2025] 170 taxmann.com 753 (Telangana) (Telangana HC) d. CIT v. Ramco Cements Ltd., [2025] 171 taxmann.com 306 (Madras) (Madras HC) e. PCIT v. Sterling Oil Resources Ltd., [2025] 171 taxmann.com 581 (Bombay) (Bombay HC) f. Jones Lang LaSalle Property Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Assessment Unit, ITA No.3964/DEL/2024 (ITAT Delhi) g. BMW India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, ITA No. 2024/Del/2022 (ITAT Delhi) h. Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT, ITA No.1862/Del/2022 (ITAT Delhi) i. Nikon India Private Ltd. v. ACIT Central Circle -3(1), ITA No. 1628/Del/2022 (ITAT Delhi) j. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No. 1940/Del/2022 (ITAT Delhi) k. Aero Club v. ACIT, ITA No. 2957/Del/2022 (ITAT Delhi) l. Hyundai Rotem v. ACIT, ITA No.2027/Del/2022 (ITAT Delhi)

14 ITA No.78/DEL/2026

m. BBC World Service India Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT, ITA No. 1627/Del/2022(ITAT Delhi) n. CNH Industrial (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, ITA No.688/Del/2025 (ITAT Delhi) o. Arm Embedded Technologies P. Ltd. v. DCIT, IT(TP)A No. 971/Bang/2022 (ITAT Bangalore) p. Signify Holdings B.V. v. ACIT, ITA No. 314/Kol/2023 (ITAT Kolkata)

23.

In light of his above submissions, ld. AR submitted that the impugned assessment order dated 24.12.2025 is barred by limitation and as such is null and void.

24.

He further submitted that remaining grounds of appeal are not pressed since Ground No.1 goes to the root of the jurisdiction of AO. If ground no.1 is decided in favour of the assessee, adjudication on remaining grounds will become infructuous. However, the assessee reserves the right to raise remaining grounds of appeal at a later stage, if required.

25.

On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

26.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the assessee is a consortium comprising Mitsui, Ircon and TPL. Based on the consortium agreement, it is agreed to compensate to Mitsui for providing technical expertise, supervision and brand value @

15 ITA No.78/DEL/2026

2.5% of the contract price. The TPO bench marked the above transaction by adopting CUP method as MAM. The assessee had selected 5 comparables, but the TPO had rejected 3 comparables and proceeded to make upward adjustments. Aggrieved with the above orders, the assessee filed objection before DRP. Ld DRP after considering the detailed submissions and objections raised by the assessee, gave directions to the AO/TPO. The issue raised by the assessee before us that the consequential order passed by the AO is beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s 144C(13).

27.

It is brought to our notice that the Ld DRP had given direction on 28.10.2025 and uploaded the directions through ITBA portal. The above date of passing of directions by the DRP was certified by the OGE passed by the TPO. Therefore, as far as the date of order passing and making the order available in the e-portal is established. Based on the above date available on record, the order should have been passed u/s 144C(13) of the Act on or before 30.11.2025, whereas the order was actually passed on 24.12.2025. We observed that the order passed by the AO is beyond the statutory limitation and on the same issue the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Louis Dreyfus (supra) held that as per the provisions of E-as, 2019, all the orders, notices and decisions have to be necessarily uploaded on the ITBA portal. The uploading of the directions of the DRP

16 ITA No.78/DEL/2026

on the ITBA portal would thus constitute valid and sufficient service therefore, the period of limitation as prescribed in the section 144C(13) of the Act would be liable to be computed from the date of uploading of the directions in the ITBA portal. That being the case, any order passed beyond the 30 days from the end of the month in which such directions/orders were passed. Hence, in the present case, the directions were passed on 28.10.2025 through the ITBA portal, therefore, the assessment order should have been passed on or before 30.11.2025. But the order was actually passed on 24.12.2025. From the ratio of the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Louis Dreyfus (supra) and Fiber home India Private Limited (supra), we observed that the assessment order passed by the AO in the present case is beyond jurisdiction, hence, we hold the same as barred by limitation. Accordingly, the ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. The other grounds raised by the assessee are kept open at this stage.

28.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of August, 2026. Sd/- sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 19.08.2026 TS

17 ITA No.78/DEL/2026

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 →