Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the final assessment order. The core issue revolved around whether the assessment order was passed within the prescribed time limits under the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the order was time-barred, while the revenue argued that Section 144C of the Act, being a special code, overrides general limitation provisions.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was indeed passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, as interpreted by various High Courts. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed on the grounds of limitation.
Key Issues
Whether the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was within the time limit prescribed under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, considering the provisions of Section 144C.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144C(13), 144B, 153, 92CA, 144C(5), 92C(3), 234B, 234C, 36(1)(va), 43B, 80G, 37, 143(1), 144B(1)(xii), 148, 153(1), 153(4), 144C(1), 144C(13), 144C(12), 153(2A), 144C(13)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee Advocate. Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Department Represented by CIT-DR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 13.10.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 03.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is against the final assessment order passed under Sections 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), dated 06.06.2024, 2 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, in pursuance to the Directions dated 29.05.2024 of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel–1 (“DRP”), Bengaluru, passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act, pertaining to the assessment year 2020-21.
The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :
GENERAL On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer i.e, the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Transfer Pricing Officer-2, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. TPO) and the Learned Assessing Officer ie, the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. AO') under the directions issued by the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('the Hon'ble DRP'), erred in making transfer pricing adjustment of INR 4,56,91,941 towards interest on outstanding receivables and INR 2,09,59,025 on corporate tax issues, aggregating to INR 6,66,50,966, and the same being wholly unjustified are liable to be deleted. VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the final assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) read with Section 144B of the Act is barred by limitation as the same is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153 of the Act and hence, the order is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in rejecting the transfer pricing analysis/ study prepared by the Appellant and conducting fresh benchmarking, without appreciating that none of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Act were satisfied.
3 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited,
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action of the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO in benchmarking outstanding receivables from AE as a separate international transaction, although the receivables are arising out of the principal transaction of rendering, software development services which is already benchmarked and tested for arm's length, found to be at arm's length by the Ld. TPO. 5 On the facts and circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. AOL4. TPO in applying the short term deposit rate of 501 to compute the TP adjustment without undertaking proper benchmarking analysis and completely ignored the fact that, as a banking company, Sti is not engaged in a business, similar to the Appellant. 6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO/L4. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in not considering the inter-company agreements entered into between the Assessee and its associated enterprises which provide a credit period of 94 days in accordance with the Advance Pricing Agreement signed for previous years. 7 On the facts and circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the addition made by the L.d. AO/Ld. TPO with respect to interest on outstanding receivables is untenable and be deleted since the addition has been made by computing interest on an invoice-to-invoice basis as against on a weighted average basis for all invoices raised during the year under consideration, as upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT in the Appellant's own case for AY 2013-14. 8 On the facts and circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in not appreciating that the Appellant had not charged interest on outstanding receivables from the Non-AEs and had followed parity in treatment between AEs and Non-AEs 9. Without prejudice to the other grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action of the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO in considering the SBI's short term deposit rates as the appropriate CUP instead of the LIBOR rate to benchmark the impugned interest on delay in receipt of outstanding receivables even though the receivables are denominated in foreign currency.
4 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited,
10. Without prejudice to the other grounds, on the facts and circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in computing the interest amount on outstanding receivables by considering erroneous interest rates. CORPORATE TAX GROUNDS 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in considering income determined as per intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, instead of returned income as the starting point for assessing total income. 12 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO erred in not granting any opportunity of being heard as per Section 144B(1)(xii) of the Act read with the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019, which provides that where a proposed modification/variation is prejudicial to the interest of the Assessee, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be provided to the Assessee. 13 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Laf. AO erred in not complying with the principle of 'audi alteram partem' by denying an opportunity to explain to the Appellant. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in reiterating the addition made in intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, in an absolute disregard of the submissions made to him during the course of assessment and the Hon'ble DRP has further erred in not adjudicating upon the objection raised before him in this regard. 15. Without prejudice to the grounds 11 to 14 above, the adjustment made in the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, towards the delay in deposit of Provident Fund ('PF') ought to be deleted, considering the same is on account of technical glitch from the banker's end. 16. Without prejudice to the grounds 11 to 14 above, the Appellant cannot be denied an otherwise allowable deduction towards PF under the Act, as the reasons for delay which led to disallowance are attributable to circumstances beyond the Appellant's control. 17. Without prejudice to the grounds 11 to 14 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in making adjustment towards the delay in deposit of PF without giving cognizance to the fact that the same was deposited by the Appellant after the due date specified in the relevant Act but before the due date of filing of return of income.
5 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited,
18. Without prejudice to the grounds 11 to 14 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that jurisdiction under section 143(1) of the Act is limited in nature and when different High Courts have taken different views on allowance of deduction under section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act, with respect to payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI having already been done by the appellant before due date of filing of return, the same cannot be termed as apparently incorrect claims from the information in the return.
19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing the deduction that was claimed by the Appellant amounting to INR 20,97,705 in accordance provisions of Section 80G of the Act.
20. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to low, while confirming the disallowance made by the Ld. AO towards the deduction claimed under Section 80G of the Ast the Hon'ble DRP erred in relying upon the Memorandum to the Finance (No 2) Ast, 2014 without appreciating the fact that the explanation in the said memorandum relates to disallowance of expenditure claimed under Section 37 of the Act and by no stretch of the imagination can be extended to the deduction claimed under Section 80G of the Act. 21. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to taw, the Ld. AO erred in making a disallowance to the extent of INR 20,97,705 (claimed qua donations aggregating to INR 41,95,410) on the ground that the underlying expenditure was not in the nature of donation, rather the same represented mandatory contribution towards Corporate Social Responsibility ('prime CSR) as specified under the Companies Act, 2013. 22 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO erred in and Hon'ble DRP further erred in confirming the disallowance made by Ld. AO by not appreciating the fact that the Parliament intended certain restrictions to only CSR expenditure in respect of two donations namely Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund and has impliedly not made any prohibition/restriction in respect of claim of CSR expenses in other cases if it is otherwise eligible under section 80G of the Act 23. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO erred in interpreting that donations has to be voluntary in nature for claiming such deduction under Section 80G of the Act.
6 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited,
24. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO has erred by concluding that the deduction under section 80G of the Act is available only for the payments grouped as donations and not for CSR contributions 25. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in disregarding the fact that the deductions claimed under section 80G of the Act pertained to eligible payments specified under section 80G of the Act. CONSEQUENTIAL 26. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. AO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action of the Ld. AO in levying interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Act, and the said levy of interest being wholly ought to be deleted. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute and or amend the shove grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal so as to enable the Honorable Members to decide this appeal according to law.”
The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of providing software development and support services to its group companies. The assessee has filed its return of income for AY 2020-21 on 29.01.2021, declaring total income of Rs. 135,11,64,780/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, a reference under Section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm’s length price of International Transactions of the assessee. During the TP proceedings, the TPO noticed that, the assessee has reported 7 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, various international transactions, including provision of software development and support services, sale of assets, purchase of assets, receipt of software development and support services from its AE as reported in Form 3CEB, filed along with the return of income. The A.O. further noted that, the assessee has benchmarked international transactions with its AE by adopting TNMM as the most appropriate method with profit level indicator of OP/OC of 17.45%. Further, the assessee has selected 14 comparables of similar nature with an OP/OC of 17.57% and claimed that, its transactions with AE are at arm's length price. The TPO, after considering relevant TP study document submitted by the assessee and also taking note of various facts, has made TP adjustment of Rs. 4,56,91,941/- in respect of interest on trade receivables from AE by applying SBI short-term deposit rate and also after allowing a credit period of 60 days, vide his order dated 31.03.2023 passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Thereafter, the A.O. has passed a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act on 28.09.2023 and 8 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, determined the total income at Rs. 141,78,15,746/- by making addition towards TP adjustment suggested by the Ld. TPO and also addition towards disallowance of CSR expenditure claimed as deduction under Section 80G of the Act for Rs. 20,97,705/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee has filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel and challenged various additions made by the A.O. towards TP adjustment in respect of interest on delayed receivables and also additions towards disallowance of CSR expenditure claimed under Section 80G of the Act. The Ld. DRP vide its directions issued under Section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 29.05.2024, rejected the objections filed by the assessee and sustained additions made by the A.O. towards TP adjustment and also disallowance of donation under Section 80G of the Act. In pursuant to the directions of DRP issued under Section 144C(5) of the Act, dated 29.05.2024, the A.O. has passed final assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 06.06.2024 and determined the total income at Rs. 141,78,15,746/- and made additions towards TP adjustment in respect of delayed receivables from AE 9 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, and disallowance of donations under Section 80G towards CSR expenditure.
Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us.
The learned counsel for the assessee, Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate, referring to the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.06.2024, submitted that, the assessment order passed by the A.O. is barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 153(1) read with sub-section (4) of the Act, which has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited (2022) 445 ITR 537 (Madras) and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs. ACIT, International Taxation
(2023) 457 ITR 161 (Bombay), wherein it has been held that, final assessment order passed by the A.O. beyond the time limit provided under Section 153(1) read with sub-section (4) of the Act is barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the assessee further referring to the dates and events in the present case 10 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, submitted that, the normal time limit for completion of assessment under Section 153(1) of the Act for the present Assessment Year 2020-21 is 21 months from the end of the relevant assessment year, which would expire on 31.12.2022, and the period for completion of assessment shall be extended by another 12 months, if any reference is made u/s 92CA and the same is extended up to 31.12.2023, whereas the A.O. passed the final assessment order only on 06.06.2024, which is beyond the limitation provided under the Act, and therefore, cannot be sustained. Therefore, she submitted that, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. should be quashed.
The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue, Ms. U. Mini Chandran, on the other hand, referring to provisions of Section 153 and provisions of Section 144C of the Act, submitted that, both the sections are mutually exclusive and operate for a different purpose which is evident from non-obstante clause under Section 144C of the Act, which overrides all other provisions of the Act, including the provisions of Section 153(1) and 153(4) of the Act. Therefore, the arguments of the counsel for the assessee in light of provisions of 11 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, Section 153(1) and 153(4) of the Act, that upper limit provided for completion of assessment would also be applicable to the cases where reference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the TPO, is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted going by the wording of Section 144C of the Act. The Ld. CIT-DR further submitted that, although this issue is in favour of the assessee by the decisions of various High Courts, including the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited (supra) and also the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs. ACIT, International Taxation (supra), but fact remains that the Revenue has challenged the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs. ACIT, International Taxation (supra) and the same has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs. ACIT, International Taxation (supra) has delivered a split verdict where one Hon'ble Judge has decided the issue in favour of the Revenue and another Hon'ble Judge has decided the 12 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, issue in favour of the assessee and the matter is still pending for adjudication before a Larger Bench. Therefore, she submitted that, since the matter has not attained finality at the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court, either the matter may be kept pending on this issue or decided in favour of the Revenue.
We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered relevant case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, including the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited (supra) and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court’s decision in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs. ACIT, International Taxation (supra). It is an admitted fact that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited (supra) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held that, the upper time limit for passing the final assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, is governed by the provisions of Section 153(1) and Section 153(4) of the Act, 13 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, and if the final assessment order passed by the A.O. is beyond the time limit provided under Section 153(1) and 153(4) of the Act, then it is barred by limitation and is liable to be quashed. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited (supra) are 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 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.
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 in be issued by the DRP, falling which any directions are to be treated as otiose. As seen 14 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, 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.
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 144C 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 (2A), 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.
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) Suliana Begum v. Prem Chand Join [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.
15 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited,
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 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.
16 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited,
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])." (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 to issue directions after nine months and a further period of one month as per section 144C (13) and three months under section 153 (2A) 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.
17 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited,
24. 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. The challenge must be available ex-facic leaving no room for the court to peruse or discuss intricate facts. In the present case, the challenge is on the ground of limitation and hence, we hold that the proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution are maintainable, 25. As regards the relief sought in other appeals viz., W.A.No.1517/2021 etc. batch, the findings rendered above are equally applicable. In these cases, for the assessment year 2009-10, the order of remand to the Assessing officer was passed on 18-12-2015 and insofar as the assessment year 2010-11 is concerned, for one issue, it was passed on 18-12-2015 and for other two issues, it was passed on 23-9-2016 after the amendment, by which time, the time limit was brought dewn to 9 months. As such, fresh orders ought to have been passed before 31-3-2017 for the assessment year 2009-10 and for one issue relating to the assessment year 2010-11 reckoning the 12 months from the financial year 2015-16 and on or before 31-12-2017 reckoning 9 months from the financial year 2016-17. Therefore, the Assessing officer ought to have passed a draft assessment order immediately and asked the assessee to file their objections with the DRP. For the mistake and the lapse of the Assessing officer, the vested right of the Assessee cannot be taken away. 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 18 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, 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 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: 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.
18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, 19 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, 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 sun 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 heretobefore, 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 5% 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 20 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, 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.
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.”
21 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited,
A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs. ACIT, International Taxation (supra) and after considering the relevant facts in paragraphs 23 to 34 of the order, it has been held as under :
“23. No doubt, section 144C of the Act is a self contained code of assessment and time limits are inbuilt at each stage of the procedure contemplated. Section 144C envisions a special assessment, one which includes the determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) of international transactions engaged in by the assessee. The DRP was constituted bearing in mind the necessity for an expert body to look into intricate matters concerning valuation and transfer pricing and it is for this reason that specific timelines have been drawn within the framework of section 1440 to ensure prompt and expeditious finalisation of this special assessment. The purpose is to fast-track a special type of assessment. That cannot be considered to mean that overall time limits prescribed have been given a go by in the process.
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 22 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, said sub-sections (1), (1-A), (2), (3) and (3-A) of the Act shall be extended by twelve months.
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 made before the Authority for Advance Rulings or before the Board for Advance Rulings under sub-section of section 2450 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.
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.
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 141C(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 23 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, 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 head 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 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.
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 AD by the ITAT under section 254, the process to pass final order under section 144C has to be taken immediately 32. 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).
24 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited,
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.”
We further note that, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Hyderabad has also considered identical issue in the case of Aveva Solutions India LLP, Hyderabad Vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad in dated 19.11.2025 where under identical set of facts, the Tribunal by following the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court and also the decision in the case of Hon'ble Bombay High Court cited above has held as under :
“11. Therefore, following the Judgments of Hon'ble Madras High Court as well as Hon'ble Bombay High Court cited (supra), 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.
12. 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.
13. 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"
25 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, 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 Parus-15 to 18 of the said judgement is as under: “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.
In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of the considered opinion that unless and until we do not timely dispose of matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Court and which stands fortified by the decisions of the various other High Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this High Court would further be burdened which otherwise can be decided and disposed of as a covered matter.
So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has already been considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder : “36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so issued and the procedure adopted being per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent- Department pursuant to the notices issued under Section 147 and 148 would also get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason we are quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the 26 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, initiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically.
The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of Jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings.
Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra.”
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.”
The sum and substance of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited (supra) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs. ACIT, International Taxation (supra) which was later followed by the Co- 27 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Aveva Solutions India LLP, Hyderabad Vs. ITO (supra) are that, the upper time limit provided under Section 153(1) and 153(4) of the Act is applicable for the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, and in case the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, is beyond the upper time limit provided under Section 153(1) and 153(4) of the Act, then the said order is beyond the limitation provided under Section 153(1) and (4) of the Act and liable to be quashed. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the normal time limit available for passing the assessment order, as per the provisions of Section 153(1) of the Act, is 21 months from the end of the relevant assessment year, which would expire on 31.12.2022. Further, as per the provisions of Section 153(4) of the Act, where a reference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time limit available stands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, if we apply the provisions of Section 153(4), then the upper time limit 28 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 31.12.2023.
In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.06.2024 is clearly beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 153(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thus, liable to be quashed, as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited (supra) and Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs. ACIT, International Taxation (supra) respectively. Therefore, by respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the above cases, we hold that the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.06.2024 is barred by limitation and accordingly quashed.
We further noted that, although the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited (supra) and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs. ACIT, 29 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, International Taxation (supra) are in favour of the assessee, and we dispose of the appeal filed by the assessee by following the above two decisions and quashed the assessment order, but the fact remains that the revenue has challenged the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs. ACIT, International Taxation (supra) by filing an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has disposed of the appeal. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict by two Hon'ble Judges on this issue, i.e., one in favour of the revenue and one in favour of the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, the matter is still pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs. ACIT, International Taxation (supra) and is to be resolved by a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue. Therefore, considering the present legal position, we allow the parties to get this appeal revived for adjudication of the other issues involved in the appeal on merits, if the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue necessitates modification of this order. Accordingly, 30 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, we dispose of this appeal on this legal issue and keep open the other issues raised by the assessee on merits, in case the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides the issue otherwise.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 3rd December, 2025. (श्री रवीश सूद) (मंजूिधथ जी) (RAVISH SOOD) (MANJUNATHA G.) न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 03.12.2025. TYNM/sps 31 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited,