Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the final assessment order was barred by limitation under section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in a faceless assessment where the date of upload/dispatch of the DRP directions on the ITBA portal differed from the date on which the assessment unit asserted receipt of those directions.
Analysis: The Tribunal applied the principle governing dispatch and receipt of electronic records under section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with the faceless assessment framework under section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On the facts, the decisive date was the upload of the DRP directions on the portal, which fixed the commencement of the limitation period under section 144C(13). The later internal transmission or physical receipt by the assessment unit did not extend the statutory time limit. Since the final assessment order was passed after the prescribed period, it was held to be time barred.
Conclusion: The assessment order was invalid as being passed beyond limitation and was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the limitation issue, and the assessment was annulled as time barred; the remaining grounds were rendered academic.
Ratio Decidendi: In faceless assessment proceedings, the limitation under section 144C(13) begins from the effective electronic dispatch of the DRP directions on the portal, and not from any later administrative receipt by the assessing unit.