Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged the final assessment order passed by the AO, alleging it was time-barred. The assessee contended that the AO failed to pass the order within the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Held
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the time limit stipulated by Section 144C(13) of the Act. The assessment order was therefore considered bad in law and passed without jurisdiction.
Key Issues
Whether the final assessment order was passed within the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144C(3), 144B, 144C(13), 153(1), 92CA(3), 144C(1), 144C, 153, 153B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 28.11.2024 which was passed vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2024-25/1070773150(1) for AY 2021-22.
The assessee has, inter-alia, raised the legal ground assailing the final assessment order framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”) on the ground that the same was time-barred, since it had been passed beyond the timelines prescribed under section 144C(13) of the Act. Ground Nos.2 & 3, which reads as under:
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order dated November 28, 2024 is bad in law and liable to be quashed as the same has been passed beyond the timelines prescribed under section 144C(13) of the Act.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order dated November 28, 2024 passed by the AO is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed, as the same has been passed beyond the time limit prescribed under third proviso to section 153(1) of the Act.
For adjudicating the legal issue, it would be gainful to refer to the relevant date of events in this matter:
Sl.No. Date Event 1 ITR filed on 09.03.2022 28.06.2022 notice issued u/s.143 (2) of the Act 2 27.10.2023 TP order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act 3 20.12.2023 Draft assessment order u/s.144C(1) of the Act 4 19.01.2024 Objections raised before the DRP 5 21.09.2024 DRP directions 6 28.11.2024 Final assessment order
The main grievance of the assessee is that the AO has not passed the final assessment order, within the time-limit stipulated u/s.144C(13) of the Act. To appreciate the legal issue, it would be gainful to reproduce the relevant provisions of Sec.144C(13) of the Act, which reads as under:
Section 144C [ Reference to dispute resolution panel] (1) ….. (2) ….. (3) ….. (4) ….. (5) ….. (6) ….. (7) …..
(8) ….. (9) ….. (10) ….. (11) ….. (12) ….. (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, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received.[emphasis given]
According to the Ld.AR, upon receipt of the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the AO should complete the final assessment as
per section 144C(13) of the Act, i.e. within one month from the end of the month of receipt of the directions of the DRP. It is the case of assessee that the directions of the DRP was dated 21.09.2024 and hence, the limitation for passing the final assessment order starts running from the end of the month i.e. 30.09.2024 and it expires on 31.10.2024, whereas the AO passed the final assessment order only on 28.11.2024. Hence, the final assessment order passed by the AO dated 28.11.2024 is time- barred. For such a proposition, relied on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramco Cements Ltd., reported in [2025] 171 taxmann.com 306 (Mad) and the Hon’ble Madras High Court decision in the case of M/s.Taeyang Metal India (P) Ltd., reported in [2024] 160 taxmann.com 536 (Mad.) and Chennai-Tribunal order in the case of Conference Service India v. DCIT 207 ITD 435 and several other decisions placed in case law Paper Book.
Per contra, the Ld.DR couldn’t controvert the fact that the DRP’s directions were dated 21.09.2024, and had been forwarded immediately to parties including AO [refer, Page No.31 of the DRP order]. But the AO had passed the final assessment order only on 28.11.2024. However, he opposed the legal issue.
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We confine ourselves to the relevant facts necessary to the legal issue raised by the assessee. The assessee is noted to have filed return of income (RoI) for AY 2021-22 on 09.03.2022 admitting total income of Rs.42,17,79,822/-. During scrutiny proceedings, the AO noted from perusal of Form 3 CEB that the assessee had entered into international transactions with its AE to the tune of Rs.374,44,64,091/-.
Accordingly, a reference was made by AO to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the ALP in respect of the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its AE; and pursuant thereto, the TPO vide order dated 27.10.2023 made adjustment of Rs.29,88,48,209/-.
Pursuant thereto, the AO passed the draft assessment order on 20.12.2023 computing total income of the assessee at Rs.72,06,28,030/- in place of the returned income of Rs.42,17,79,822/-. Against the proposed addition made in draft assessment order, the assessee filed objection before the DRP and the DRP was pleased to partly allow the objections of the assessee on 21.09.2024. Pursuant thereto, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order on 28.11.2024 u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(1) r.w.s.92CA of the Act. The assessee has challenged the impugned action of the AO passing the final assessment order on 28 November, 2017, on the ground that it was time-barred. According to the Ld.AR, the AO was bound to pass the final assessment order on or before 31st October, 2024 as per the timeline prescribed u/s.144C(13) of the Act.
In order to adjudicate this legal issue, we note that following facts are not disputed i.e. the AO received the directions of the DRP on 21.09.2024 [as noted from Page No.31 of the DRP order that the DRP order dated 21.09.2024 was issued to the AO & TPO as well as to assessee on the same date refer Page No.86 of the Paper Book]; and the AO framed the final assessment order on 28.11.2024. The question is whether the AO has framed the final assessment order well within the time prescribed by the Act or not. In this regard, it would be gainful to refer to relevant statutory provisions which is necessary for adjudicating the dispute:
144C. (1) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first instance, forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as the draft order) to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, on or after the 1st day of October, 2009, any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee. (2) On receipt of the draft order, the eligible assessee shall, within thirty days of the receipt by him of the draft order,— (a) File his acceptance of the variations to the Assessing Officer; or (b) File his objections, if any, to such variation with,— (i) The Dispute Resolution Panel; and (ii) The Assessing Officer.
(3) ……
(4) ……
(5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection is received under subsection (2), issue such directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment.
(6) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall issue the directions referred to in sub- section (5), after considering the following, namely:—
(a) Draft order; (b) Objections filed by the assessee; (c) Evidence furnished by the assessee; (d) Report, if any, of the Assessing Officer, Valuation Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer or any other authority; (e) Records relating to the draft order; (f) Evidence collected by, or caused to be collected by, it; and (g) Result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be made by, it.
(7) The Dispute Resolution Panel may, before issuing any directions referred to in sub-section (5),—
(a) make such further enquiry, as it thinks fit; or (b) cause any further enquiry to be made by any income-tax authority and report the result of the same to it.
(8) The Dispute Resolution Panel may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order so, however, that it shall not set aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under sub-section (5) for further enquiry and passing of the assessment order.
Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the power of the Dispute Resolution Panel to enhance the variation shall include and shall be deemed always to have included the power to consider any matter arising out of the assessment proceedings relating to the draft order, notwithstanding that such matter was raised or not by the eligible assessee.
(9) …….
(10) Every direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel shall be binding on the Assessing Officer.
(11) No direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee and the Assessing Officer on such directions which are prejudicial to the interest of the assessee or the interest of the revenue, respectively.
(12) No direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued after nine months from the end of the month in which the draft order is forwarded to the eligible assessee.
(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, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received.
From a bare reading of the provisions stated above, it is noted that the AO at the first instance need to forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment (hereinafter ‘draft order’) to the eligible assessee after he proposes to make any variation in the returned income or loss which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. The assessee having received the draft order shall within 30 days file his acceptance of the variation to the AO (not relevant in this case) or file his objections, if any, to such variation with the DRP and the AO. In case, where the assessee has opted for filing an objection before the DRP, the DRP has to issue such directions as per sub-section (5) as it thinks fit for the guidance/acceptance of the AO to enable him to complete the assessment within nine months from the end of the month in which the draft order was forwarded to the assessee. Before issuing any directions as contemplated under sub-sec.5 of sec.144C of the Act, the DRP has power as given in sub-section (6) (viz., to conduct any enquiry collect evidences, call for reports from AO/Valuation Officer/TPO or any other authority) and thereafter, has power to confirm, reduce or enhance the variation proposed in the draft order. However, it is pertinent to point out that as
per sub-sec. (8) of Sec.144C of the Act, the DRP is precluded from setting aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under sub-section (5)
for further enquiry and passing of the assessment order. As per sub- section (10) of Section 144C of the Act, every direction issued by the DRP shall be binding on the AO. As per sub-section (13) of section 144C of the Act, upon receipt of the directions under sub-section (5) from DRP, the AO shall inconformity with the directions of the DRP, complete the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received.
9. Here, in this case, the pertinent facts to resolve the legal issue raised by the assessee is that the AO has passed the draft assessment order on 20.12.2023 and objection was filed by the assessee before the DRP on 19.01.2024 and the DRP directions were issued on 21.09.2024 and the AO received the DRP directions on 21.09.2024. Therefore, as
per section 144C(13) of the Act, the AO has to complete the assessment (final assessment) without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. That means, in this case, the AO had received the directions of the DRP dated 21.09.2024, on the same date.
Therefore, within one month from the end of the month of receipt of the DRP directions means 31st October, 2024 is the last date to pass the final assessment order. However, in this case, it is an admitted fact that the final assessment order was passed on 28th November, 2024, which means the final assessment order has been passed after the time barring date on 31st October, 2024. Therefore, such an order is bad in law and the AO has passed the order wholly without jurisdiction and therefore, is null in the eyes of law. For such a proposition, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Central Processing Centre & Ors [2023] SCC Online Bombay 2464, wherein, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under:
Section 144C of the Act is a self contained provision which carves out a separate class of assessees, i.e., "eligible assessee". Section 144C of the Act was inserted in the Finance Act of 2009, and came into effect from October1, 2009. In the Notes on Clauses to the Finance Bill, 2009 (Budget 2009-10) ([2009] 314 ITR (St.) 57 ), the reason for insertion of section 144C is given as under (page 160 of 314 ITR (St.)):
"The subjects of transfer pricing audit and the taxation of foreign company are at nascent stage in India. Often the Assessing Officers and Transfer Pricing Officers tend to take a conservative view. The correction of such view takes very long time with the existing appellate structure. With a view to provide speedy disposal, it is proposed to amend the Income-tax Act so as to create an alternative dispute resolution mechanism within the Income-tax Department and accordingly, section 144C has been proposed to be inserted so as to provide inter alia the Dispute Resolution Panel as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism."
Thus, if the provisions of section 144C as mandated by the statute are not strictly adhered to the entire object of providing for an alternate redressal mechanism in the form of Dispute Resolution Panel stand defeated. That is not the intention of the Legislature when the provision was introduced in the Act. Section 144C(10) of the Act provide that the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel are binding on the Assessing Officer. By failing to pass any order in terms of the provision, the Assessing Officer cannot be permitted to defeat the entire exercise and render the same futile. When a statute prescribes the power to do a certain thing in a certain way, then the thing must be done in that way and other methods of performance are forbidden. Once the statute has prescribed a limitation period for passing the final order, it is expected that the internal procedure of the Department should mould itself to give meaning to and act in aid of the provision. Any procedural defect (there is none in this case) in the internal mechanism of the working of E-assessment Scheme, cannot operate against the interest of the assessee. Hence, the Faceless Assessing Officer cannot be believed that the Dispute Resolution Panel direction was received by him only on August 23, 2023 despite being uploaded on the Income-tax Business Application portal on March 25, 2021. The failure on the part of Department to follow the procedure under section 144C of the Act is not merely a procedural irregularity, but is an illegality and vitiates the entire proceeding.”
10. The Hon’ble Madras High Court on the very same issue before us has held (relevant portion only) in the case of M/s.Taeyang Metal India Pvt. Ltd., in WP No.12159 of 2023 and WMP No.11989 of 2023 dated 23.02.2024, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court held as under:
6. The interpretation of sub-section 13 of Section 144C takes centre stage in the adjudication of this dispute. The said sub-section is set out below:
“(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, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. ” From the above provision, it is evident that the specified time limit is one month from the end of the month in which directions are received. It is also clear that the time limit should be computed from the date of receipt of directions issued under sub- section(5) thereof. Sub-section (5) of Section https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 144C deals with the issuance of directions by the DRP. The admitted position is that the DRP issued directions on 16.06.2022 and this fact is borne out by examining the proceedings of the DRP, which is contained at page Nos.122 to 130 of the typed set of papers. The said proceedings also record that the copy of the directions of the DRP is being forwarded to the assessee, the assessing officer and the TPO. The assessing officer referred to therein is the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. The petitioner has placed on record a communication from the Secretary and ACIT to the DRP. The said communication states that the assessing officer in the captioned case is the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi and that a scanned copy of the proceedings was uploaded to the National Faceless Assessment Centre on 17.06.2022.
7. From the above discussion, the conclusion that emerges is that the directions of the DRP were forwarded to the assessing officer, i.e. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi by uploading the same on 17.06.2022. Although learned senior standing counsel contends that the jurisdictional assessing officer received the directions only on 17.03.2023, for purposes of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis sub-section (13) of Section 144C, the date of receipt should be reckoned as the date of receipt by the National Faceless Assessment Centre on 17.06.2022. The internal arrangement by which the assessment proceedings relating to the petitioner were purportedly transferred so as to ensure that the proceedings are not barred by limitation is not material for this purpose. Indeed, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the communication dated 12.04.2022 from the PCCIT of the National Faceless Assessment Centre seeking approval for transfer so as to complete assessment within the period of limitation underscores the fact that the income tax authorities were mindful of the fact that assessment would be barred by limitation unless such assessment is proceeded with and completed expeditiously.
8. All that remains is to examine whether the assessment proceedings would be barred by limitation if computed from the end of June 2022. If so computed, the period of one month expired on 31.07.2022, whereas the assessment order came to be issued on 25.03.2023. Hence, the assessment order was issued beyond the time limit specified in sub-section (13) of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Section 144C. By taking into account not only statutory prescription but also the interpretation thereof by the Division Bench of this Court in Roca and that of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Louis Dreyfus, I conclude that the assessment order cannot be sustained.
In view of the conclusion that the assessment proceedings are barred by limitation, it is unnecessary to examine as to whether the assessing officer was duly authorised to exercise jurisdiction either under the Whatsapp message issued on 13.04.2022 or upon the physical file being signed on 21.04.2022.
For reasons set out above, W.P.No.12159 of 2023 is allowed by quashing the impugned assessment order dated 25.03.2023. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
In the light of the above discussion and the judicial precedents and the binding decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Taeyang Metal India Pvt. Ltd., (supra) we hold that the final assessment order passed by the AO/DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai, dated 28.11.2024 for AY 2021-22 in the case of the assessee was barred by limitation and therefore, passed wholly without jurisdiction and therefore, null in the eyes of law and therefore, we quash the impugned assessment order dated 28.11.2024. Since, the legal issue has been allowed, we are not inclined to adjudicate the other grounds on merits being academic.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on the 18th day of December, 2025, in Chennai.