CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE SEEDS PVT LTD TAX (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PHI SEEDS PVT LTD.),TELANGANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 19(1) , NEW DELHI

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the Assessment Order dated 30.08.2022 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022- 23/1045081748(1) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Delhi, under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

2
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), pursuant to the directions of the Dispute
Resolution Panel (“DRP”) under Section 144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment
Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised additional ground of appeal in terms of Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 in the following manner:
“2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned final assessment order dated 30.08.2022 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), being barred by limitation in terms of section 144C(13) of the Act, is bad in law and void-ab- initio
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned final assessment order dated 30.08.2022 is barred by limitation in terms of section 153 read with section 1440 of the Act and is thus, illegal, bad in law and void-ab-initio.
4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in not quoting computer generated
Document Identification Number ("DIN") on the body of DRP order directions dated 27.06.2022 issued under section 144015) of the Act, in contravention to Circular No. 19 of 2019 issued by the CBDT, thus, rendering such order directions to be invalid and never to have been issued as per para 4 to the said Circular
5. That on the facts circumstances of the case and in law, the directions order dated 27.06.2022 passed under section 144C(5) of the Act by DRP
Panel-1. Bengaluru, is without juri iction, bad in law and void-ab-initio inasmuch as the juri iction of the Appellant lies in New Delhi and accordingly. DRP. New Delhi was required to pass the order
6. Without prejudice, that on the facts circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 27.07.2022 passed under section 92CA(3) read with section 144C by non-juri ictional Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in Hyderabad is without juri iction, bad in law and void-ab-initio

3
3. At the time of hearing of the matter the Learned Senior Counsel Shri Ajay
Vohra raised the first additional ground relating to the juri ictional issue to this effect that the assessment order dated 30.08.2022 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144(13) of the Act is barred by limitation in terms of Section 144C(13) of the Act and therefore, is liable to be quashed as void ab initio.
4. As the juri ictional ground has been raised by the assessee along with other grounds we would like to consider the same at the very threshold of the matter.
5. It is stated by the Learned Senior Counsel representing the assessee that the Learned DRP has passed order on 27.06.2022 which was uploaded on the ITBA portal on the next day i.e. 28.06.2022 which is evident from the noting appearing from the said DRP’s order dated 27.06.2022. Since the same was uploaded in the ITBA portal on 28.06.2022 the Assessing Officer is required to pass final order by 31.07.2022 in terms of the limitation prescribed under the provisions of Section 144C(13) of the Act i.e. within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is issued. However, the Learned Assessing Officer passed the final order on 30.08.2022 which is barred by limitation and therefore, liable to be quashed. He has further drawn our attention to the impugned order passed by the Learned
ACIT, Circle 19(1), New Delhi dated 30.08.2022 wherein at page 77, paragraph 6
he has mentioned that the DRP vide its order dated 27.06.2022 circulated vide

4
intimation letter No. ITBA/DRP/S/91/2022-23/1043639667(1) dated 28.06.2022
received through mail on 07.07.2022 in the office of NEAC, Delhi gave direction to TPO to recalculate the adjustment. The TPO vide its order no.
ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1044185295(1) dated 27.07.2022 reduced the TP addition to 73,12,84,629 from earlier adjustment of Rs. 73,30,06,629/-. Mr. Vohra joins the issue here to this effect that as the intimation letter having been received on 07.07.2022, the Learned Assessing Officer though sought to justify the delay in passing the final order, the same should be considered in favour of the assessee as the statutory condition has been violated by the Learned Assessing Officer in not passing the final order within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is deemed to have been received 28.06.2022 when the DRP’s order was uploaded in the ITBA portal. In this regard he has also relied upon on to very many judgments passed by different forums. Some of those are as follows:
- Louis Dreyfus Company India (P) Ltd vs DCIT: [2024] 464 ITR 595 (Del)
- PCIT vs Fiberhome India (P) Ltd: [2025] 482 ITR 221 (Del)
- PCIT vs Sterling Oil Resources Ltd: [2025] 171 taxmann.com 581 (Bom)
- Rapiscan Systems (P) Ltd vs ADIT: [2025] 473 ITR 485 (Telangana)
- CIT vs Ramco Cements Ltd: [2025] 474 ITR 9 (Mad)
- Microsoft Corporation (India) P Ltd vs DCIT: ITA No.1862/Del/2022 (Del
Trib.) (TM)
- Hyundai Rotem Company Indian Project Offices vs ACIT: [2025] 210 ITD
326 (Del Trib.)Revenue's appeal dismissed in [2025] 180 taxmann.com 18
(Del)
- Rio Tinto India Private Ltd vs ACIT: ITA No.185/Del/2022 (Del Trib.)

5
- Jones Lang LaSalle Property Consultants (1) Pvt Ltd vs AU: ITA No.
3964/Del/2024 (Del Trib.)
- ITBA Common Functions Module/ Instructions No.3 dated 17.09.2019
6. On the other hand, the Learned CIT(DR) also relies upon the observation made by the Learned Assessing Officer at paragraph 6 of page 77 as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph in order to justify the impugned order dated 30.08.2022
passed by the Learned AO as in terms of the statutory provison as the intimation letter dated 28.06.2022 of the DRP was received through email on 07.07.2022 in the office of NEAC, Delhi directing the TPO to recalculate the adjustment.
According to the Learned CIT(DR) the final order has rightly been passed on 30.08.2022 i.e. within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received.
7. Heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and perused the entire materials available on record. Under the facts and circumstances available before us the short point appears to be adjudicated is as to whether the impugned order dated 30.08.2022 being the final order of the Assessing Officer is in terms of the statutory provision of Section 144C(13) of the Act or not. In this regard we have carefully considered the order passed by the Learned DRP dated
27.06.2022 wherein on the first page the uploading of the order on the ITBA portal made on 28.06.2022 has been mentioned in the following manner:

6
“DIN No: ITBA/DRP/M/144C(5)/2022-23/1043639611(1) Dt. 28.06.2022”
7.1
Thus, it is an admitted position that once the order is uploaded on the ITBA portal, which is a part of faceless assessment regime, cannot be questioned at all, which could rather be deemed to be sufficient communication to the concerned assessee and the authorities as well. The plea, therefore, taken by the Assessing
Officer in order to justify the delay in passing the final order on 30.08.2022 stating that the communication was received through email on 07.07.2022 in the office of NEAC, Delhi, directing the TPO to recalculate the adjustment is of no consequence, rather becomes redundant. On this aspect we have further considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Louis Dreyfus
Company India (P) Ltd (supra). In that particular case the directive of the DRP came to be uploaded on the ITBA portal on 24.06.2022. It was stated further that dispatch through speed post to the third respondent TPO and fourth respondent i.e.
Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, New
Delhi was made on 27.06.2022 and it is thereafter that the TPO appears to have passed the order on 25.07.2022 and assessment was finalized on 24.08.2022. The Hon’ble Court taking into consideration the specific provision of law under Section 144C(13) of the Act observed that the order of assessment if at all could have been framed lastly by 31.07.2022 whereas the assessment was framed on 24.08.2022

7
violating the mandatory prescribed time limit provided by the statute and therefore, with the following observation the assessment order was quashed and set aside:
“20. Undisputedly, the directive of the DRP came to be uploaded on the ITBA portal on 24 June 2022. It is additionally stated to have been dispatched through Speed Post to the third respondent (TPO) and the fourth respondent (Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi) on 27 June 2022. It is thereafter that the TPO appears to have passed the order dated 25 July 2022
21. We, however note that paragraph 4(2) of the E-as, 2019 makes the following salient provisions:-
"4(2). All communication among the assessment unit, review unit, verification unit or technical unit or with the assesse or any other person with respect to the information or documents or evidence or any other details, as may be necessary for the purposes of making an assessment under this Scheme shall be through the National e- assessment Centre."
22. It is thus manifest that as per the provisions of E-as, 2019, all orders, notices and decisions have to be necessarily uploaded on the ITBA portal and as part of the larger faceless assessment regime which now holds the field. The uploading of the directive of the DRP on the ITBA portal would thus constitute valid and sufficient service and the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 144C(13) of the Act would be liable to be computed bearing that crucial date in mind. Once the aforesaid position becomes clear, it is evident that the -order of assessment, if at all could have been framed lastly by 31 July 2022. There has thus been an abject failure on the part of the first respondent to comply with the mandatory timelines as incorporated in the gforenoted provisions. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned order of assessmem and the consequential penalty proceedings are thus liable to be set aside on this short score alone.
23. The writ petition is allowed. The order of assessment dated 24 August
2022 as well as the penalty show cause notice dated 24 August 2022 are quashed and set aside. For reasons afore noted and consequent to a failure on the part of the respondents to implement the directives of the DRP, the 8
return as submitted by the petitioner would be deemed to have been accepted and the tax liability worked accordingly”.
7.2
Thus, having regard to the provisions of law, particularly Section 144C(13) of the Act as the order impugned dated 30.08.2022 is beyond the prescribed limitation i.e. within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received having regard to the DRP order found to have been uploaded on 28.06.2022, the impugned order is found to be barred by limitation and respectfully relying upon the ratio of decisions of different forums, particularly the Hon’ble
Juri ictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Louis Dreyfus Company India (P)
Ltd. (supra), as quoted hereinabove, the impugned order is found to be barred by limitation and thus, bad in law. The same is not sustainable in law and thus, quashed. Ordered accordingly.
8. In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 2575/Del/2022 is allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 18.12.2025. (SMT. RENU JAUHRI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 18.12.2025. *MP*