DSM SHARED SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

3 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO/TPO have further erred in : a. rejecting the economic analysis carried out in TP documentation which was maintained in good faith and with due diligence despite satisfying conditions prescribed under Section 92C(3) of the Act; b. rejecting certain fitters criteria adopted in TP documentation and application of certain filters which are not relevant to the Appellant. c. not adopting the upper turnover filter while doing the comparability analysis for the Appellant's international transaction under the segment. d. including following companies which are not functionally comparable to the Appellant:

I. Infosys BPM Ltd. II. Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. III. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. IV. Vitae International Accounting Services Private Limited. V. Inteq BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. VI. Interactive Manpower Solution Pvt. Ltd. VII. MPS Ltd. VIII. TTEC India Customer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. IX. Canam Consultants Ltd. e. excluding the following companies which are functionally comparable to the Appellant:

4 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 I. Allsec Technologies Limited II. Cosmic Global Limited III. DKM Online Pvt Ltd N. IV. Expect More BPO Solutions Pvt Ltd V. R Systems International Limited - Business Process Outsourcing Segment VI. Vertex Customer Management India Pvt Ltd VII. Virinchi Ltd - IT enabled services f. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. TPO/Ld. AO erred in:

I. Not considering provision for bad and doubtful debts as operating expense while computing the operating profit mark-up. II. Not considering rates and taxes as operating expense while computing the operating profit mark-up. III. Including miscellaneous income and other income as a part of operating income while computing the operating profit mark-up.

5. Without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.AO/Ld. TPO erred in:

I. not granting working capital adjustment; and II. not granting risk adjustment.

Proportionate Adjustment 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, without prejudice to the above grounds of objections, Ld. TPO/AO erred in computing the adjustment at an entity level instead of 5 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 restricting to the segment pertaining to the international transaction with the AE Interest on delayed receivables 7. On the facts arid circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in making an adjustment of INR 6,98,209 towards interest on delayed receivables.

8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO have further erred in : a. treating outstanding receivables from Associated Enterprises ('AEs') as deferred payments; b. considering deferred receivables as a separate international transaction for arriving at an arm's length price: c. recharacterizing the trade receivables as unsecured loan extended to the AEs; d. not appreciating the fact that the working capital adjustment takes into account the impact of deferred receivables, if any, and

9. Without prejudice to Ground no. 7 & 8 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP /Ld. AO/Ld. TPO have erred in disregarding the following: a. in not netting of the receivables as against the payables for the assessee, and further in not restricting the benchmarking to the balance remnant only using LIBOR rate.

6 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 b. Invoices with AEs are raised in foreign currency and interest, if any, shall be charged on the basis LIBOR rate Levy of interest under section 234A/2348/234C 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AD has erred in levying interest while computing interest under section 234A/2348/234C of the Act.

Penalty Proceedings 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO have erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271AA r.w.s. 274 of the Act, for non-maintenance of information on "receivables" in Form 3CEB.

12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in imposing penalty under section 271AA of the Act, without appreciating that there was a reasonable cause of failure to furnish information and/or documents as required by subsection (3) of section 92D of the Act and hence no penalty is imposable as per the provisions of section 273B of the Act The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the grounds of appeal mentioned supra and all consequential relief thereto. The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter. amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this Appeal.”

7 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 3. Learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee, at the very outset, invited the attention of the Bench on the legal ground no.2 raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal regarding validity of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on the ground of barred by limitation. He submitted that the assessment order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.144B of the Act is barred by limitation as provided u/sec.153(1) read with sub-section-(4) of the Act. He has pointed-out that as per the provisions of sec.153(1), the time period for completing the assessment is 09 months from the end of the assessment year and, therefore, in the normal case of assessment, the limitation was available up-to 31.12.2022. Since it is a case of Reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer [in short “TPO”], therefore, sub-section (4) of sec.153 extends the time limit for further 12 months for completing the assessment and consequently, the time limit in the case of the assessee expires on 31.12.2023. Learned Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that since the impugned order was passed on 23.10.2024, therefore, the same is barred by 8. ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 limitation and liable to be quashed. Thus, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that as per sub- sec.(2) of sec.144C, the Assessing Officer has to give 30 days time period to the assessee to file acceptance or it’s objections with the DRP before the limitation period provided u/sec.153(4) expires. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs., Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd., [2022] 445 ITR 537 (Madras) as well as the Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd., vs., ACIT, International Taxation [2023] 457 ITR 161 (Bombay). Thus, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that the overall limitation for passing the assessment order cannot be exceeded as provided u/sec.153(1) read with sub-sec.(4) of said Section and the limitation as provided u/sec.144C(13) is only a restriction on the Assessing Officer to pass the final order within one month from the receipt of the Directions of the DRP and not enlarging the limitation which is provided u/sec.153 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court has held that provisions

9 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 u/sec.144C and 153C are not mutually exclusive as both contains the provisions relating to sec.92CA and are inter- dependent and overlapping. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd., vs., ACIT, International Taxation (supra) and held that the limitation prescribed u/sec.153 of the Act would prevail over and above the assessment time limit prescribed u/sec.144C of the Act. Learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee further submitted that an identical issue has been decided by the ITAT, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad in the case of Aveva Solutions India LLP, Hyderabad vs., ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad in ITA.No. 1170/Hyd./2024 for the assessment year 2021-2022 vide order dated 19.11.2025 wherein the Tribunal after considering the Judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs., Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd., (supra) and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd., vs., ACIT, International Taxation (supra), has allowed the appeal of the assessee. He, 10 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 accordingly, relied upon the Order of the Tribunal and pleaded that the appeal of the assessee should be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned DR has submitted that the provisions of sec.144C begins with a non-obstante clause and, therefore, sec.144C is a Code in itself so far as the assessments in case of an “eligible assessee” and, therefore, the non-obstante clause in sec.144C(13) excludes the provisions of sec.153 of the Act. Learned DR has submitted that sec.153 of the Act exists in the Income Tax Act for a consequently longer period of time, whereas sec.144C of the Act is relatively a new provision introduced in 2009 and, therefore, the effect of non-obstante clause in sec.144C makes it clear that the provisions of sec.144C would prevail over the provisions of sec.153 of the Act. The learned DR has further submitted that the Income Tax Act provides two different methods of assessment one for the “eligible assessee” as defined u/sec.144C(15)(b) of the Act and the “other method” is applicable for the assessees’ who falls under the normal category. In case of ordinary or normal category of assessee, the assessment order must be 11 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 completed within the limitation as provided u/sec.153(1) of the Act, whereas, if the matter is referred to the TPO u/sec.92CA of the Act, this period of limitation is further extended by a period of 12 months as per sub-sec.(4) of sec.153. The learned DR has further submitted that as per the special provisions u/sec.144C, the assessee is having an option to accept the Draft Assessment Order and variations in the draft assessment or to object the same by filing objections before the DRP or to the Assessing Officer for going to challenge the order of the Assessing Officer under regular appeal before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, once the assessee decided to go for the objections before the DRP, the limitation for completing the assessment is applicable as provided u/sec.144C(13) of the Act. Thus, the learned DR has submitted that once the Final Assessment Order is passed within the period of 30 days from the receipt of the DRP directions, then, it is well within the period of limitation provided u/sec.144C(13) of the Act. The learned DR has further submitted that this issue is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Earlier the Division Bench 12 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given divergent decisions and, therefore, now this controversy has to be resolved by a Larger Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the learned DR has submitted that till the dispute is resolved by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court, this issue may be kept open.

13 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. In the case in hand, the assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act dated 23.10.2024 being barred by limitation as provided u/sec.153 of the Act. We find force in the arguments of the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee that an identical issue has been considered by the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in the case of Aveva Solutions India LLP, Hyderabad vs., ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held in Paras-7 to 15 as under :

“7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. In the case in hand, the assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act dated 18.10.2024 being barred by limitation as provided u/sec.153 of the Act. At the outset, it is noted that the limitation for passing the assessment orders is provided u/sec.153 of the Act and the relevant provisions are in sub-sec.(1) and sub-sec.(4) of sec.153 reads as under : "153. Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and re-computation.— (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of twenty-one months from 14 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. Provided that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2018, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words "twenty-one months", the words "eighteen months" had been substituted: Provided further that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on – (i) the 1st day of April, 2019, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words "twenty-one months", the words "twelve months" had been substituted. (ii) the 1st day of April, 2020, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words "twenty-one months", the words "eighteen months" had been substituted. Provided also that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2021, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words "twenty-one months", the words "nine months" had been substituted: Provided also that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2022, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words "twenty-one months", the words "twelve months" had been substituted: (1A) xxxxx xxxxx (1B) xxxxx xxxxx (2) xxxxx xxxxx (3) xxxxx xxxxx 15 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 (3A) xxxxx xxxxx (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (1A), (2) (3) and (3A), where a reference under sub-section (1) of section 92CA is made during the course of the proceeding for the assessment or reassessment, the period available for completion of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, under the said sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A) shall be extended by twelve months.

(5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be], wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment [or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be. Provided that where it is not possible for the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] to give effect to such order within the aforesaid period, for reasons beyond his control, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner on receipt of such request in writing from the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be], if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order.

16 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 requires verification of any issue by way of submission of any document by the assessee or any other person or where an opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the assessee, the order giving effect to the said order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 shall be made within the time specified in sub- section (3).”

8. A co-joined reading of sub-sec.(1) with third proviso of this sub-section of sec.153 makes it clear that in normal course, no order of assessment shall be made after the expiry of 9 months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. The third proviso is relevant for the case in hand because the assessment year under consideration is 2021-2022 and, therefore, the period of 21 months from the end of the assessment year is reduced to 9 months. Sub-sec.(4) contemplates the cases where a reference u/sec.92CA(1) is made during the course of assessment proceedings, then, the period available for completion of the assessment shall be extended by 12 months. It is an undisputed fact that the present case is falling in the category of an “eligible assessee” where reference u/sec.92CA(1) was made by the Assessing Officer to the TPO and, therefore, the time limit for completing the assessment was extended by 12 months whereby the Assessing Officer was required to complete the assessment by 31.12.2023. The Assessing Officer has passed the Final Assessment Order on 18.10.2024 in pursuance to the Directions dated 24.09.2024 of the DRP. This controversy of the limitation applicable u/sec.153 or u/sec.144C(13) was considered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs., Roca 17 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd., (supra) and held in Paras-18 to 28 as under :

“18. The main contentions of the Department, through their counsel are that Section 144C is a code in itself and hence on remand by the ITAT, the power of DRP to take up the dispute on additions by IPO, is not circumscribed by Section 153 and that in the absence of any express time limits contemplated under the Act, the time limits under Section 153 for reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section 153 is applicable to every proceedings on remand and the department having slept over the issue for several years, cannot now redo the proceedings afresh, after certain rights have vested with the assessees. Even if specific provisions are not there to deal with this situation, the proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable time and hence the impugned proceedings are liable to be struck down and rightly done so by the learned Judge.

19. Admittedly, the facts including the dates are not under dispute. As regards the appeal in W.A.No.1854 of 2021, even though the remand was on 24-1-2013 and the assessee had received the order on 8-2-2013, the first notice by the DRP was issued on 19-2-2014 and the first hearing in the Chennai office was on 10-3-2014. Therefore, it is lucid that the DRP had the knowledge of the order before 19-2-2014. The matter was heard on various dates in Chennai office and written submissions were also filed. Thereafter, the files have been transferred to Bengaluru by the CBDT notification dated 31.12.2014. The Learned Judge relying upon the findings in the batch of cases which was decided 18 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 first and rendered additional findings, which have been extracted in paragraphs 10 and 11 above, has allowed the writ petitions holding that the time limit under Section 153 (2A) was not adhered to and in any case, the proceedings have not been concluded within a reasonable time.

19 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 21. As held above, the assessment has to be concluded within 21 months when there is no reference and when there is a reference, it has to be concluded within 33 months. In the additional 12 months, the draft order is to he passed, the objections have to be filed, the DRP has to issue the directions and the final order is to be passed. The provisions under section 1440 and section 153 are not mutually exclusive as both contain provisions relating to Section 92CA and are inter-dependent and overlapping. On remand, prior to amendment as per Section 153 (24), the Assessing officer is given 12 months to pass a fresh assessment order. Therefore, it is incumbent on hina to do ss, irrespective of the fact that DRP has completed the hearing and issued the directions or not. As rightly held by the learned judge, we are of the view that the DRP ought to have concluded the proceedings within 9 months from the date of receipt of the Tribunal's order, when it had issued a notice on 19-2-2014 and conducted the hearing as early as on 10-3-2014 and on several dates. The DRP at Chennai, in fact ought to have passed orders before 19-11- 2014, even if the date of receipt of the notice is taken as 19-2-2014. In that event, the assessing officer ought to have passed the order before 31- 12-2014 or at the latest before 31-3-2015 considering that the order was received during the Financial year 2013-14. The transfer of the files to Bengaluru, after the lapse of the time, will not indefinitely extend the time and can have no impact on the time lines. It is an inter-department arrangement and it cannot defeat the rights of the assessee.

12. In Canado Sugar Refining Co. v. R. [1898 AC 735:67 LJPC 125), Lord Davy observed "Every clause of a statute should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses of the Act, so as, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute or series of statutes relating to the subject-matter." …………… 14. This rule of construction which is also spoken of as "ex visceribus actus" helps in avoiding any inconsistency either within a section or between two different sections or provisions of the same statute.

15. On a conspectus of the case-law indicated above, the following principles are clearly discernible: 1) It is the duty of the courts to avoid a head-on clash between two sections of the Act and to construe the provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in such a manner as to harmonise them. 2) The provisions of one section of a statute cannot be used to defeat the other provisions unless the court, in spite of its efforts, finds it impossible to effect reconciliation between them. 3) It has to be borne in mind by all the courts all the time that when there are two conflicting provisions in an Act, which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if 21 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 possible, effect should be given to both. This is the essence of the rule of "harmonious construction". 4) The courts have also to keep in mind that an interpretation which reduces one of the provisions as a "dead letter" or "useless lumber" is not harmonious construction. 5) To harmonise is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose." (ii) CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers [2003] 126 Taxman 321/259 ITR 449:

"16. The courts will have to reject that construction which will defeat the plain intention of the legislature even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used. (See Salmon v. Duncombe [(1886) 11 AC 627:55 LJPC 69: 55 LT 446 (PC)] AC at p. 634, Curtis v. Stovin [(1889) 22 QBD 513: 58 LJQB 174:60 LT 772 (CA)] referred to in S. Teja Singh case [AIR 1959 SC 352: (1959) 35 ITR 408]).

18. The statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute.

19. The court must ascertain the intention of the legislature by directing its attention not merely to the clauses to be construed but to the entire statute; it must compare the clause with other parts of the law and the setting in which the clause to be interpreted occurs. (See RS. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka [(1992) 1 SCC 335: 1992 SCC (L&S) 286: (1992) 19 ATC 507: AIR 1992 SC 81]) Such a construction has the merit of avoiding any inconsistency or repugnancy either within a section or between two different sections or provisions of the same statute. It is the duty of the court to avoid a head-on clash between two sections of the same Act. (See Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 373: AIR 1997 SC 1006])."

22 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 (iii) Franklin Templeton Trustee Services (P.) Lid. v. Amruta Garg [2021] 124 taxmann.com 326/164 SCL 720: "17. The concept of "absurdity" in the context of interpretation of statutes is construed to include any result which is unworkable, impracticable, illogical, futile or pointless, artificial, or productive of a disproportionate counter-mischief [See Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 5th Edn., p. 969.]. Logic referred to herein is not formal or syllogistic logic, but acceptance that enacted law would not set a standard which is palpably unjust, unfair, unreasonable or does not make any sense. [Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 5th Edn., p. 986.) When an interpretation is beset with practical difficulties, the courts have not shied from turning sides to accept an interpretation that offers a pragmatic solution that will serve the needs of society [Id, p. 971, quoting Griffiths, L.J.J. Therefore, when there is choice between two interpretations, we would avoid a "construction" which would reduce the legislation to futility, and should rather accept the "construction" based on the view that draftsmen would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. We must strive as far as possible to give meaningful life to enactment or rule and avoid cadaveric consequences [See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 14th Edn., p. 50.]"

23. Further, similar non-obstante clause is also used in section 144C(4) with a same limited purpose to imply, even though there might be a larger time limit under Section 153, once the order of TPO is accepted or not objected to, causing a deeming fiction of acceptance, the final order is to be passed immediately. The object is to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and the authority need not wait for the last date to pass the orders. The limitation prescribed under the statute is for the assessing officer and therefore, it is his duty to pass order in time irrespective of whether the directions are received from DRP or not. As held by us above, the DRP will have no authority 23 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 to issue directions after nine months and a further period of one month as per section 144C (13) and three months under section 153 (24) is available, within which period no orders have been passed in the present cases. The reference made by the learned senior counsels on the judgments in Nokia India (P) Ltd. (supra) and Vedenta Ltd. (Supra) is well founded. The timeline given under the Act is to be strictly followed.

26. We are not oblivious of the fact that any finding on the aspect of reasonableness in time in passing orders when no time is provided would be superfluous in view of our decision in earlier paragraphs. It is necessary to decide on the issue as in this case, the revenue has taken more than 5 years in one appeal and 4 years in other appeals, which is unacceptable as rightly held by the learned judge. We are not alone on this issue and are fortified by the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. (i) Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. State of Haryana 1988 taxmann.com 761 "15. Before we part with the case, we would like to indicate that assessment of tax should be completed with expedition. It involves the revenue to the State. In the case of a registered dealer who collects sales tax on behalf of the State, there is no justification for him to withhold the payment of the is so collected. If a timely assessment is completed, the dues of the State can be conveniently ascertained and collected. Delay in completion of assessment often creates problems. The assessee would be required to keep up all the evidence in support of his transactions. Where evidence is necessary, with the lapse of time, there is scope for its being lost. Oral evidence as and when required to be produced by the assessing authority may not be available if a long period intervenes between the transactions and the consideration of the matter by the assessing authority. Long delay thus is not in the interest of either the assessee or the State, In view of the fact that a period of limitation has been prescribed for bringing the escaped turnover into the net of taxation, such an eventuality cannot be grappled with appropriately unless timely assessment is completed. In several taxing statutes, even in a situation 25 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 like this, where assessment under Section 11(3) or 28(3) of the respective Acts is contemplated, a period of limitation is provided. Until by statute, such a limitation is provided, it is proper for the State Governments to require, by statutory rules or appropriate instructions, to ensure completion of assessments with expedition and reasonable haste but subject to rules of natural justice." (ii) Govt. of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals [1989] 3 SCC 483: "6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged that Rule 12 is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it does not provide for any period of limitation for the recovery of duty. He urged that in the absence of any prescribed period for recovery of the duty as contemplated by Rule 12, the officer may act arbitrarily in recovering the amount after lapse of long period of time. We find no substance in the submission. While it is true that Rule 12 does not prescribe any period within which recovery of any duty as contemplated by the rule is to be made, but that by itself does not render the rule unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the absence of any period of limitation it is settled that every authority is to exercise the power within a reasonable period. What would be reasonable period, would depend upon the facts of each case. Whenever a question regarding the inordinate delay in issuance of notice of demand is raised, it would be open to the assessee to contend that it is bad on the ground of delay and it will be for the relevant officer to consider the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case notice of demand for recovery was made within reasonable period. No hard and fast rules can be laid down in this regard as the determination of the question will depend upon the facts of each case." (iii) State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-op. Milk P. Union Ltd. [2007] 11 SCC 363:

26 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 17. A bare reading of Section 21 of the Act would reveal that although no period of limitation has been prescribed therefor, the same would not mean that the suo motu power can be exercised at any time.

28. With the above directions, all the writ appeals are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

9. Thus, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that provisions of sec. 144C and 153 are not mutually exclusive, but, are rather mutually inclusive. The period of limitation u/sec. 153 is applicable for completing the assessment and sec. 144C(13) is only in the nature of restricting the time period, within which, the Assessing Officer is required to pass the Final Assessment Order after the Directions of the DRP and not enlarging the limitation provided u/sec. 153 of the Act.

30 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 24. We find it difficult to accept the submissions of Mr. Suresh Kumar because it would in fact mean that. notwithstanding the twelve month period prescribed under section 153 (3) of the Act, where it says that an order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order under section 254 of the Act may be made at any time before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the financial year in which order under section 254 of the Act is received by the Commissioner, would not apply to a case where section 144C of the Act is applicable. It would also mean that the time prescribed in section 153 (1) of the Act cannot apply where section 144C of the Act is applicable in the case of an eligible assessee. If Mr. Suresh Kumar was correct, then in our view, it would have been specifically so provided in section 153 of the Act. We would agree with Mr. Mistri that wherever the legislature intended extra time to be provided, it is expressly provided in section 153 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of section 153 of the Act also applies to fresh order under section 92 CA of the Act being passed in pursuance to an order under section 254 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of section 153 of the Act specifically provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (1-A), (2), (3) and (3-A) of the Act, where a reference under sub-section (1) of section 92 CA of the Act is made during the course of the proceeding for assessment or re-assessment, the period available for completion of assessment or re-assessment, as the case may be, under the said sub- sections (1), (1-A), (2), (3) and (3-A) of the Act shall be extended by twelve months.

27. Having considered the language of sections 144C and 153, we cannot accept that the provisions of section 153 are excluded to the operation of section 144C.

33 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 30. The exclusion of applicability of section 153, in so far as non- obstante clause in sub-section (13) of section 144C is concerned, it is for limited purpose to ensure that debers larger time available, an order hased on the directions of the DRP has to be passed within 30 days from the end of the receipt of such directions The section and sub-section have to be read as a whole with connected provisions to decipher the meaning and intentions.

34 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 11. Therefore, following the Judgments of Hon'ble Madras High Court as well as Hon'ble Bombay High Court cited (surpa), we hold that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 18.10.2024 is barred by limitation and consequently, the same is liable to be quashed. We order accordingly.

35 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 “15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generate further litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a large number of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent stand that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to protect the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would be trite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with an observation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) shall however be subject to the outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income Tax Department and which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

37 ITA.No.1358/Hyd./2024 18. We would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious of the fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear that allowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this writ petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very same issue.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th day of December, 2025.