AAPC INDIA HOTEL MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI, INDIA vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT, JAO-DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI

ITTPA 29/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 January 2026AY 2022-2324 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned Final Assessment Order dated 21.11.2025, pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-23, is barred by limitation as per Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd., and also relying on a plethora of orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, and a decision in the case of Teva Pharmaceutical & Chemical Industries India Private Limited. The Tribunal found that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose and, by respectfully following the binding precedents, quashed the impugned Final Assessment Order. The Tribunal granted liberty to the parties to revive the appeal for adjudication of other issues on merits if the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. necessitates a modification of this order. The other issues raised by the assessee on merits were kept open, subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court's judgment. The Stay Application was dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee, AAPC India Hotel Management Private Limited, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the final assessment order dated 21.11.2025 for Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee's primary contention was that the final assessment order was time-barred, having been passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153 read with Section 153(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue argued that the issue of limitation, arising from the interplay of Section 144C and Section 153, was unsettled and pending before the Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. The revenue requested a deferral of adjudication. The ITAT noted that a coordinate bench had previously dealt with similar submissions in another case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the final assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 21.11.2025, for Assessment Year 2022-23, is barred by limitation as per Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the final assessment order was time-barred, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. and numerous orders of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal. The assessee sought to allow Ground No. 6 of its appeal. Revenue's contentions: The revenue submitted that the issue of limitation was unsettled and pending before the Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. Therefore, the revenue contended that it would be premature for the Tribunal to decide the issue and requested a deferral of adjudication, arguing that deciding the present appeal would lead to a multiplication of proceedings. The revenue also submitted written submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 144B,Section 153,Section 153(1),Section 153(4),Section 158AB,Section 253,Section 260A,Section 261,Section 136

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER

For Appellant: Ms. Suchita Kanodia, CA
For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR
Hearing: 27.01.2026Pronounced: 29.01.2026

PER KRINWAN

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →