← Back to search

NETENRICH TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

PDF
ITA 870/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 January 20253 pages

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD

BEFORE
SHRI MANJUNATHA G., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
&
SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.870/Hyd/2024
(धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21)

Netenrich Technologies
Private Limited
Hyderabad
[PAN : AABCN8899A]

Vs.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Circle-5(1)
Hyderabad

अपीलार्थी / Appellant

प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee by: Adv.Tanmayee Rajkumar,AR
राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue by: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR

सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 16/12/2024
घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement on: 02/01/2025

आदेश / ORDER
PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M:
Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 09/07/2024 passed by the learned Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), in pursuant to directions u/s 144C(5) of the Act, dated 03.04.2024, issued by the Dispute Resolution
Panel-1 (“the Ld.DRP”), Bengaluru in the case of Xilinx India Technology
Services (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2020-21, assessee preferred this appeal.

2.

Pursuant to the directions issued on 3/4/2024 by the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under section 144C (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), learned Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order under section 144C(13) of the Act on 31/5/2024, which the assessee is challenging in this appeal on the ground that such final assessment order is barred by limitation. Assessee is placing reliance on the decision reported in louis Dreyfus Company India (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT (2024) 159 Taxmann.com 244 (Delhi), PCIT vs. Fiber Home India (P.) Ltd (2024) 159 Taxmann.com 772 (Delhi) which were followed by the Tribunal in subsequent cases. 3. Learned DR does not contradict the facts borne on record and there is no dispute that the directions issued by the learned DRP on 3/4/2024 were uploaded to the ITBA portal on 3/4/2024 itself. It is also not in dispute that the impugned final assessment order under section 144 C (13) of the Act was passed on 31/5/2024. 4. In the case of Louis Dreyfus company India (P.) Ltd (supra) Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the uploading of directive of learned DRP on ITBA portal would constitute valid and sufficient service and period of limitation as prescribed in section 144C(13) of the Act would be liable to be computed bearing that crucial date in mind. It is further held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that the final assessment order that was passed by the learned Assessing Officer beyond the period of one month from the end of the month in which the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) were received is liable to be set-aside as being barred by time. When we apply the law laid down in the above decisions to the undisputed facts in this matter, we find no option but to hold that the impugned assessment order is barred by time. We, therefore, respectfully following the consistent view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above cases hold that the impugned assessment order in this matter is barred by limitation and is liable to be quashed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 2nd January, 2025. (MANJUNATHA G.) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 02/01/2025 L.Rama, SPS