Assessment order under s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) held time-barred applying s.13 of IT Act, impugned order quashed

ITAT Delhi-AT held the final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) to be time-barred and therefore null and void. Applying s.13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as incorporated by s.144B(6)(v) of the Income-tax Act and interpreted by the SC in GS Chatha Rice Mills, the Tribunal treated the date of uploading of the DRP order on the ITBA portal (26.05.2022) as determinative. Consequently, the assessment was required to be completed on or before 30.06.2022; completion on 01.07.2022 rendered the impugned order invalid and liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues:
1. Timeliness and jurisdiction of the final assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
2. Validity of the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) without a Document Identification Number (DIN).
3. Application of legal precedents and judgments to the present case.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the final assessment order dated 01/07/2022, alleging it was illegal, barred by time limitation, and lacked jurisdiction. The appellant contended that the order was vitiated due to a breach of the time limit set by section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. Citing the case of PCIT vs. Fiberhome India P. Ltd., the appellant argued that the time limits under the Act are mandatory. Additionally, reference was made to judgments such as Louis Drefus company India Private Limited vs. DCIT and the case of Union of India Vs. G. S. Chatha Rice Mills to support the argument that the order was time-barred.

2. The appellant raised a specific ground regarding the validity of the order passed by the DRP without a DIN number, citing a circular from the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). However, during the hearing, this ground was not pressed by the appellant, indicating a shift in focus towards the timeliness and jurisdictional issues of the final assessment order.

3. The appellant relied on various judgments, including Nikon India Private Ltd. vs. ACIT, Honda R & D (India) P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, and Syniverse Technologies Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, to argue that the appeal should be accepted. The appellant contended that the principles established in these cases were applicable to the present situation, emphasizing the importance of adhering to time limits prescribed by the law.

4. The Department of Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the final assessment order was passed within the prescribed time limit as per the communication received from the DRP. Referring to the provisions of the Act, the Department contended that the order was well within the time limit despite the physical receipt of the DRP order on a later date.

5. The Tribunal analyzed the events and dates in comparison to the Nikon case, emphasizing the significance of the time of uploading the DRP order onto the ITBA portal. Relying on the interpretation of section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order in the present case was time-barred and, therefore, set it aside.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the impugned assessment order dated 30.06.2022 as it was deemed to be barred by limitation. The other grounds raised by the appellant were considered academic in nature and left open for future consideration.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key arguments, legal principles, and judgments considered by the Tribunal in reaching its decision to set aside the final assessment order.

---