BIRDEYE SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/16467/2024HC DelhiDLHC01086175202421 January 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court relied on its previous judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-2, New Delhi v. Hyundai Rotem Company. The Court reiterated that the date of service upon the Assessing Officer, as contemplated under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the date when the DIN is generated on the order being uploaded by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Since the facts were not in dispute and the respondent's counsel could not dispute the legal position, the Court found the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer to be barred by limitation. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, BIRDEYE SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner contended that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-2, New Delhi v. Hyundai Rotem Company, dated 29.10.2025. In that case, the High Court had held that the date of service upon the Assessing Officer, as per Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the date when the Document Identification Number (DIN) is generated on the order being uploaded by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The respondent's counsel did not dispute this legal position, and the facts in the present case were also not in dispute.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation, in light of the Delhi High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-2, New Delhi v. Hyundai Rotem Company? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment in Hyundai Rotem Company, which held that the date of service upon the Assessing Officer under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the date the DIN is generated on the DRP's uploaded order. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's order, if passed beyond this deemed service date, would be time-barred. Revenue's Contention: The respondent's counsel was not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of law and fact.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144C(13)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16467/2024 and CM APPL. 69465/2024, CM APPL. 22814/2025

BIRDEYE SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Agarwal, Advocate.

versus

ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

21.01.2026 1. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment dated 29.10.2025 passed by this Court in ITA 304/2025, Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-2, New Delhi v. Hyundai Rotem Company. 2. In the case of Hyundai Rotem Company (supra) this Court has held that the date when the DIN is generated on the order being uploaded by the DRP, is the date of service upon the Assessing Officer, as provided under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Mr. Sanjeev Menon, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/01/2026 at 12:27:59

law. 4. In the present case also, the facts are not in dispute. 5. Hence, the present writ petition is allowed in light of the judgment in the case of Hyundai Rotem Company (supra). The impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer is quashed, being barred by limitation.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J. JANUARY 21, 2026/MR

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/01/2026 at 12:27:59

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 →