PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL (IRL) LIMITED,IRELAND vs. ADIT (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute about the fact that for AY 2018–19, the last date available for passing of the final assessment order, if calculated as per the provisions of the first proviso to section 153(1) read with section 153(4) of the Act was 30.09.2021. There is also no dispute about the facts that the final assessment order was passed by the Ld. AO on 07.07.2023, the draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act was passed on 30.09.2022, and the directions of Ld. DRP under section 144C(5) of the Act were issued on 30.06.2023. The only issue before us is whether the limitation period for passing the final assessment order is (a) 30.09.2021, as per the provisions of section 153(1) read with section 153(4) of the Act, or (b) 31.07.2023, i.e., one month from the end of the month in which directions of the Ld. DRP were passed, as per the provisions of section 144C(13) of the Act. In this regard, we note that an identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Aveva Solutions India LLP, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad in ITA.No.1170/Hyd./2024 vide Order dated 19.11.2025 in Paras-7 to 14 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 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 (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.

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 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 TPO, 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.

As rightly contended by the learned senior counsels and affirmed by the Learned Judge, the DRP proceedings is a continuation of assessment proceedings. To put it further, it is a part of assessment proceedings, once the objections are filed and under section 144C (12) a period of 9 months is prescribed, within which, directions are to be issued by the DRP, failing which any directions are to be treated as otiose. As seen from the timeline discussed in the earlier paragraphs, the original assessment proceedings are to be completed within 21 months and the additional time of 12 months is granted when proceedings before TPO is pending. The TPO has to pass orders before 60 days prior to the last date. Then 30 days time is given to the assessee to file their objection before the DRP and the DRP is given 9 months time and thereafter, within one month from the end of the month of receipt of directions from DRP, the final order is to be passed. This court is not in consonance with the contention of the learned senior panel counsel for the appellants/ revenue that the time period of 33 months, provided initially is for the draft order and not for the final order. A careful perusal of the timeline would indicate that the time limit is for the final assessment and not for the draft order. The anomaly in the argument is that in the present cases, no fresh draft order was passed, but the DRP had issued the notices. If the contention of the appellants / revenue was to hold some water, they must have passed the draft assessment order immediately on receipt of the order from the Tribunal, but instead, notice was issued by the DRP. In any case, it is a far cry for the revenue as because no order has been passed for more than 5 years.

Insofar as the non-obstante clause in Section 144C(13) is concerned, we concur with the view of the Learned Judge. The exclusion of applicability of Section 153 or Section 153 B is for a limited purpose to ensure that dehors larger time is available, an order based on the directions of the DRP has to be passed within 30 days from the end of the month of receipt of such directions. The section and the sub- section have to be read as a whole with connected provisions to decipher the meaning and intentions. At this juncture it would be useful to refer to the following decisions: (i) Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain [1997] 1 SCC 373 at page 381: "11. The statute has to be read as a whole to find out the real intention of the legislature.

On a conspectus of the case-law indicated above, the following principles are clearly discernible:

Insofar as the challenge to the show cause notice issued is concerned, though generally, the High Court will be circumspected to interfere at the stage of show cause notice, the law on the point is well settled with exceptions carved in the following cases; a. when the notice is issued beyond the period of limitation, b. when the notice is without authority, c. when notice is issued without following the procedures under the applicable Act or the rules framed thereunder and d when the notice is issued with a prejudiced mind.

It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors.

Revisional jurisdiction, in our opinion, should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport in terms of the said Act. In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five years. The view of the High Court, thus, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Reasonable period, keeping in view the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years.

In S.B. Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India [(1976) 2 SCC 181 : 1976 SCC (Tax) 177 : (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined : (SCC p. 188, para 15) "15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suo motu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so done. Within a few months of the passing of the appellate order by the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner proceeded to revise and revised the said order. There was no undue or unreasonable delay made by the Commissioner. It may be stated here that an appeal has to be filed by an assessee within the prescribed time and so also a time-limit has been prescribed for the assessee to move in revision. The appellate or the revisional powers in an appeal or revision filed by an assessee can be exercised in due course. No time-limit has been prescribed for it. It may well be that for an exercise of the suo motu power of revision also, the revisional authority has to initiate the proceeding within a reasonable time. Any unreasonable delay in exercise may affect its validity. What is a reasonable time, however, will depend upon the facts of each case."

The question as to what would be the reasonable period did not fall for consideration therein. The binding precedent of this Court, some of which had been referred to us hereto before, had not been considered. The counsel appearing for the parties were remiss in bringing the same to the notice of this Court. Furthermore, from a perusal of the impugned notice dated 4-9-2006, it is apparent that the revisional authority did not assign any reason as to why such a notice was being issued after a period of 5½ years.' Generally, no hard and fast rule can be laid down to indicate what is a reasonable time. It though depends upon the facts of the each case, drawing a clue from Article 113 of the Limitation Act, the residual entry, it would be reasonable to conclude that in such cases, action is to be concluded within 3 years. Needless to say, if the statute prescribes shorter period, the doctrine of reasonable time will not be applicable and the timeline under the statute is to be strictly followed.

For the reasons set out herein before, we conclude as under: (a) The provisions of Sections 144C and 153 are not mutually exclusive, but are rather mutually inclusive. The period of limitation prescribed under Section 153 (2A) or 153 (3) is applicable, when the matters are remanded back irrespective of whether it is to the Assessing Officer or TPO or the DRP, the duty is on the assessing officer to pass orders. (b) Even in case of remand, the TPO or the DRP have to follow the time limits as provided under the Act. The entire proceedings including the hearing and directions have to be issued by the DRP within 9 months as contemplated under section 144C(12) of the Income-tax Act, (c) Irrespective of whether the DRP concludes the proceedings and issues directions or not, within 9 months, the Assessing officer is to pass orders within the stipulated time, (d) In matter involving transfer pricing, upon remand to DRP, the Assessing officer is to pass a denova draft order and the entire proceedings as in the original assessment, would have to be completed within 12 months, as the very purpose of extension is to ensure that orders are passed within the extended period, as otherwise the extension becomes meaningless. (e) The outer time limit of 33 months in case of reference to TPO under Section 153, would not refer to draft order, but only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within the time limits prescribed, (f) The non-obstante clause would not exclude the operation of Section 153 as a whole. It only implies that irrespective of availability of larger time to conclude the proceedings, final orders are to be passed within one month in line with the scheme of the Act, (g) When no period of limitation is prescribed, orders are to be passed within a reasonable time, which in any case cannot be beyond 3 years. However, when the statute prescribes a particular period within which orders are to be passed, then such period, irrespective of whether it is short or long, shall be applicable.

Moreover, Explanation-1 below section 153 of the Act also provides for the periods which have to be excluded while computing the twelve months period mentioned in section 153 (3) of the Act. For example - it provides for exclusion of the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts audited or inventory valued under sub-section (2-A) of section 142 of the Act or in a case where an application made before the Income-tax Settlement Commission is rejected by it or is not allowed to be proceeded with by it, the period commencing from the date on which an application was made before the Settlement Commission and ending with the date on which the order is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or where the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Authority for Advance Rulings or before the Board for Advance Rulings under sub-section 1 of section 245Q of the Act and ending with the date on which the Advance Ruling pronounced by it is received by the Commissioner or where reference for exchange for information is made by an authority competent under an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90-A of the Act or where a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner etc., shall be excluded. There is no mention anywhere about section 144C of the Act.

If we accept the submissions of Shri Suresh Kumar that when there is a remand as in this case, the AO is unfettered by limitation, it would run counter to the avowed object of provisions that were considered while framing the provisions of section 144C of the Act. Having set time limits every step of the way, it does not stand to reason that proceedings on remand to the AO may be done at leisure sans the imposition of any time limit at all.

Mr. Mistri, therefore, is correct in his submissions that the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act would prevail over and above the assessment time limit prescribed under section 144C of the Act. This is because the Assessing Officer may follow the procedure prescribed under section 144C of the Act, if he deems fit necessary but then the entire procedure has to be commenced and concluded within the twelve months period provided under section 153 (3) of the Act. This is because, the procedure under section 144C(1) of the Act also has to be followed by the Assessing Officer only if he proposes to make any variation which is prejudicial to the interest of the eligible assessee. If the Assessing Officer did not wish to make any variation which is prejudicial to the interest of the eligible assessee, he need not go through the procedure prescribed under section 144C of the Act.

In our view, the assessment has to be concluded within twelve months as provided in section 153(3) of the Act when there has been remand to the AO by the ITAT under section 254 of the Act. Within this twelve months prescribed, the AO has to ensure that the entire procedure prescribed under section 144C is completed and pass a final assessment order. For this the AO has to be prompt in passing an order contemplated under section 144C(1) of the Act and not wait to be reminded like in this case and still take almost two years to start the process. Sub-section (13) of section 144C provides that an assessment officer shall, upon receipt of the directions, issued under sub-section (5), 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. What is contemplated under section 144C (13) is the passing of the final assessment order. Twelve months as provided under section 153(3) would start from the end of the financial year in which the Principal Commissioner received the order under section 254 from the ITAT. The assessing officer should have taken steps to pass the final order under sub-section (13) of section 144C within 12 months period.

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 dehors larger time available, an order based 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.

We would also observe that a similar non-obstante clause is also used in section 144C(4) of the Act with the same limited purpose to imply, even though there might be a larger time limit under section 153, once the matter is remanded to AO by the ITAT under section 254, the process to pass final order under section 144C has to be taken immediately.

The object is to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. There is a limit prescribed under the statute for the AO and therefore, it is his duty to pass an order in time. After 30th September 2021, the AO will have no authority to pass any final assessment order in this Case.

We cannot accept the submissions of Shri Suresh Kumar that passing of draft assessment order before 30th September 2021 would suffice. We find support for this view in Roca Bathroom (SB) (supra) and Roca Bathroom (DB) (supra).

In the circumstances, since no final assessment order can be passed in the present case as the same is time barred, the Return of Income as filed by Petitioner be accepted. This would however, not preclude the Revenue from taking any other steps in accordance with law.”

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.

Since the issue is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT-[International Taxation] vs., Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd., [2025] 177 taxmann.com 262 (SC) and the first attempt to resolve the dispute by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not successful due to divergent views of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the matter is required to be resolved by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since the matter is yet to be resolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, we allow the parties to get this appeal revived if the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue necessitates modification of this order.

The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kotha Kantaiah vs., Income Tax Officer in WP.No.344 of 2025 vide order dated 24.04.2025 while dealing with the issue of validity of the notice issued u/sec.148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [in short “JAO”] instead of Faceless Assessing Officer [in short “FAO”] as per the Faceless Assessment Scheme has quashed the notice issued u/sec.148 by the JAO and consequently, re- assessment order, but, granted the liberty to the parties to get the petition revived as per the outcome of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the identical issue. The relevant part of the Judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Telangana in the case of Kotha Kantaiah vs., Income Tax Officer (supra) in Paras-15 to 18 of the said judgement is as under :

Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal on this legal issue and keep open the other issues raised by the assessee on the merits if the Hon’ble Supreme Court decides this issue otherwise.” 7. On perusal of above, we find that this Tribunal, relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, has held that the statutory limitation is to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 153(1) read with section 153(4) of the Act. Therefore, as a matter of consistency, following the order of this Tribunal, we hold that the limitation period for passing the final assessment order by the Ld. AO in the present case is 30.09.2021. However, the final assessment order has been passed by the Ld. AO on 07.07.2023, which is well beyond the statutory time limit. Therefore, we hold that the final assessment order dated 07.07.2023 passed by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation, and consequently, the same is liable to be quashed. 8 Since this issue is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd., (supra), therefore, we allow the parties to get this appeal revived for adjudication of the other issues on merits, if the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue necessitates modification of this order. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal on this legal issue and keep open other issues raised by the assessee on merits, if the identical legal issue is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court necessitates the modification of this order.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.