TERAS STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. ACCIL STEELS PVT. LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

10.2023 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 16. C.O.42/Del/2024 [In ITA No.3859/ Del/2023] [AY 2013-14] -do- -do- -do- 17. 170/Del/2024 [AY 2013-14] 13.12.2023

04.2021 -do- 18. 171/Del/2024 [AY 2014-15] -do- -do- -do- 19. 977/Del/2024 [AY 2013-14] -do- -do- 20. 978/Del/2024 [AY 2014-15] -do- -do-

When the matter was called for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out at the outset that all the captioned appeals involves one common legal point which strikes to the root of the matter i.e. bar of limitation under s. 153(3) of the Act. The issue of bar of limitation substantially affect the outcome of all the captioned appeals and thus requires to be adjudicated at the threshold. The Ld. Counsel thus submitted that to begin with, that he seeks to address the overwhelming and sizeable issue of bar of limitation as a preliminary legal ground. 2.1. The Ld. Counsel pointed out that a search and seizure operation under s. 132 of the Act were carried out in the group cases including all the captioned assessees’. As a consequence, assessment under s. 153A of the Act was framed in all these cases. The legitimacy of additions/disallowances made in the search assessment cases involving captioned assessees were carried to the ITAT. The Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2019 involving ITA Nos.6319 to 6321 & 6206/2018, 6207 to 6208 and 6317 to 6318/Del/2018, 6209 to 6211/Del/2018, 6310/Del/2018, 6311, 6312, 6445/Del/2018, 6313 to 6316/Del/2018, 6322, 6323, 6204, 6324 & 6325/Del/2018, 6326 to 6328/Del/2018, 6329, 6205 & 6330/Del/2018, 6664 & 6704/Del/2018 set aside the respective assessment orders remitted the issues raised for verification and fresh adjudication by the AO in terms of directions as per its order dated 28.02.2019. ITA Nos.457/Del/2024 & Others 3. Pursuant to the directions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, the assessment orders were re-framed under s. 153A r.w.s 254/143(3) of the Act, all dated 23.04.2021 wherein certain additions have been re-affirmed. The assessment order passed in the second round in pursuance of the order of the ITAT and in the first round, was carried before the CIT(A) and thereafter, before the Tribunal in the present appeals. 3.1. In this backdrop, the Ld. Counsel asserted that all the assessment orders all dated 23.04.2021 giving rise to captioned 20 appeals are passed beyond statutory time limits prescribed under s. 153(3) of the Act and are hopelessly time barred. To support such plea, the Ld. Counsel pointed out that the appellate order passed under s. 254(1) of the Act by the ITAT in the first round of proceedings were served by the Tribunal to the office of the CIT- DR on 28.03.2019. This fact of service of the appellate order dated 28-02-2019 passed under s. 254(1) of the Act in the first round has come to the surface in terms of the information supplied to the Assessee under the RTI Act, 2005 dated F.No.39/RTI/2024 dated 27.11.2024 by CPIO, ITAT. Owing to the service of the order passed by the ITAT on the CIT-DR in Feb. 2019, the limitation period would thus begin to run from the date of service of the appellate order. The time limit available to the AO under s. 153 (3) for passing fresh assessment order in pursuance of appellate order of the ITAT comes to an end on 31-12-2019. The impugned assessment orders under s. 143(3) r.w.s 254 have however been passed on 23.04.2021 i.e. beyond more than 15 months of the statutory time limit. The ld. Counsel thus essentially insists that statutory limitation period available to the AO for passing fresh assessment orders under s. 143(3) r.w.s 254 is required to be reckoned from the date on the Income Tax department had become privy to and acquiesced with the appellate order passed in the first round. The limitation period for passing the fresh assessment order thus ends in Dec. 2019 whereas the Ld. AO has passed such order in April 2021 which are barred by limitation. 3.2 Delineating further, the Ld. Counsel observed that in terms of s. 153(3), the fresh assessment orders in compliance of the directions of the appellate order of the Tribunal in first round of proceedings ought to have been passed before the ITA Nos.457/Del/2024 & Others expiry of 09 months from the end of the Financial Year in which the appellate order passed under s. 254 was received by the Department and no later. 3.3 To lend support to such plea that all the assessment orders giving rise to captioned appeals stood time barred in terms of s. 153(3) of the Act, the Ld. Counsel referred to and relied upon the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Delhi (Central-III), New Delhi & Anr. [2018] 408 ITR 328 (Del.); Huawei Telecommunication India Company Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, Circle-2 in W.P.(C) 7792/2024 and CM Appl.32296/2024 judgment dated 28.11.2024 and host of other cases rendered on similar footing. The ld. Counsel thus submitted that in the light of the imperatives of judicial propositions governing the field, the assessment orders framed beyond statutory time limits set out under s. 153(3) of the Act do not carry any legal propriety and consequently, requires to be quashed at threshold without any demur. 3.4 In the wake of these submissions, the Ld. Counsel submitted that all other legal and factual grounds as well as the additional grounds raised towards absence of DIN etc. are rendered academic. 4. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, vociferously contended that the plea raised on behalf of the assessee are based on misconception of facts and law and the assessment orders have been passed within period of limitation indeed. The Ld. CIT-DR referred to a reply dated 10.09.2024 forwarded by the AO in this regard. Adverting to the aforesaid reply, the Ld.CIT DR submitted that the order of ITAT dated 28.02.2019 was received by the office of CIT (Judicial) as well as CIT, Central-3 on 08.04.2019 and therefore, the time limit for passing the assessment order is set in motion from that date and not any time prior thereto. The Ld. CIT-DR contended that the service of appellate order passed by the Tribunal to the Office of the CIT-DR per se do not trigger the statutory time limit for the purposes of computation of time limit available to redo assessment under s. 143(3) r.w.s 254(1) of the Act. It is the service of order on the prescribed authorities viz. Pr. CCIT/ CCIT/Pr. CIT/ or CIT as the case may be, which is relevant for start of limitation period. The service of ITAT order on authority namely Commissioner

The Identical controversy towards bar of limitation came up for adjudication before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Jain, Virendra Kumar Jain vs Pr.CIT (Central-III), New Delhi & Anr.(2018) 406 ITR 328 (Del). The Hon’ble Delhi High took cognizance of Full Bench ( supra) which is decisive in the controversy in hand: “ it is quite evident from the decision in Odean Builders (sura) that limitation begins ( for any purpose under the Act) from the point of time when the departmental representative receives the copy of a decision or an order of the ITAT. The evidence on record in this case clearly establishes that the concerned

The judgment in Surendra Kumar Jain thus makes itself evident that the limitation period under s. 153(3) would begin to run from the date of receipt of order by the Departmental representative for the purposes making assessment in terms of directions of Appellate Tribunal as per its order passed under s. 254(1) of the Act. The receipt of the appellate order dated 28.02.2019 was demonstrated to be received by the office of the Ld.CIT DR on 28.03.2019. The limitation period for framing fresh assessment order thus would end on 31-12- 2019. In view of the express judicial fiat, the impugned assessment orders framed on 23-04-2021 i.e after the expiry of limitation is thus rendered void and non est. 8. Similar view has been expressed in Huawei Telecommunications India 7792/2024 and CM appl. 32296/2024; CIT(IT) V. Qualcomm Incorporated (2024) 159 Taxmann.com 717(Del.) 9. Governed by the judicial precedents quoted above, we find substantial merit in the plea of the assessee that all the assessment orders giving rise to the captioned appeals have been passed much beyond the statutory time limit available under s. 153(3) of the Act and thus a nullity in law at the threshold. 10. The preliminary issue of bar of limitation is thus adjudicated in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. This being so, the other legal and factual objections raised by respective sides do not call for any separate adjudication. 11. In the result, all captioned appeals/Cross-Objections etc. of the assessee are allowed whereas all the captioned appeals/Cross-objections etc. of the Revenue arising from time barred assessment orders are dismissed.