BUCHER HYDRAULICS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT TP 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 1872/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 September 2026AY 2017-1811 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bucher Hydraulics Private Limited, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 showing a total loss of Rs. 1,29,20,316/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and various issues were flagged, including a claim for "Any other amount allowable as deduction," depreciation, custom duty, sales turnover, foreign remittance, share premium, international transactions, reduction in profit due to ICDS, and loss from currency fluctuations. A reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) regarding international transactions. The TPO made an upward adjustment of Rs. 98,57,303/-. A draft assessment order was passed, and the assessee appealed to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP confirmed the TPO's adjustment. The final assessment order was passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) on 24.11.2021, including the transfer pricing addition of Rs. 98,57,303/-. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order dated 24.11.2021 was passed after the statutory limitation period. The DRP directions were uploaded on 29.09.2021. As per section 144C(13) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the directions are received. Therefore, the last date for completion of the assessment was 31.10.2021. Since the AO passed the final assessment order on 24.11.2021, it was beyond the prescribed time limit and thus barred by limitation. The Tribunal relied on the co-ordinate bench decision in ITA No. 1733/Del/2022 (Honda R and D India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT), which dealt with a similar issue of time-barred assessment in the context of faceless assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the final assessment order dated 24.11.2021 as being void and without jurisdiction. Ground No. 3 of the appeal was accepted, and other grounds were left undecided as they became academic. The additional ground regarding the absence of DIN was not explicitly decided as the appeal was allowed on limitation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the final assessment order dated 24.11.2021, passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) read with sections 144C(13) and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is barred by limitation as per section 144C(13) of the Act? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the final assessment order was time-barred. It contended that the DRP directions were uploaded on 29.09.2021, and under section 144C(13), the AO had one month from the end of that month to complete the assessment, making the last date 31.10.2021. However, the AO passed the order on 24.11.2021, which is beyond the statutory limit. The assessee relied on the judgment in Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited and other similar cases. The assessee also raised an additional ground regarding the DRP directions not quoting the DIN as per Circular No. 19/2019, making the order invalid. Revenue's contention: The revenue submitted that the DRP order was sent manually, and the ITBA receipt was not notified, relying on the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 144B,Section 92CA(1),Section 92CA(3),Section 153(1),Section 153(4),Section 270A,Section 13,Section 144B(6)(v),Section 153

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “I”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI M BALAGANESH & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CA, Ms. Pallavi Dinodia, CA, Ms. Monika Bhardwaj, CA
Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 23.09.2026

PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

The appeal filed by the Assessee is against order dated 24.11.2021 of ld. AO/ National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1872 /Del/2021

AO”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income of total loss of Rs. 1,29,20,316/- on 27.11.2017. the case was selected for complete scrutiny in

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,299 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →