AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct on 23.03.2022, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed final assessment order on 23.06.2022. As per the provisions of Section 144C(13) of the Act, the AO is required to pass final assessment order within one month from the end of month in which directions of the DRP are received. He pointed that directions of the DRP were uploaded on ITBA portal on 01.04.2022.To support his contention, he referred to letter dated 29.07.2022 at page 471 of the paper book received from the office of DRP. He further pointed that as per the aforesaid letter the directions of the DRP were also communicated to the AO through speed post dispatched on 04.04.2022. Since, the DRP directions were conveyed to the AO in the month of April, the Assessing Officer was duty bound to pass the assessment order within one month from end of April 2022 i.e. assessment order should have been passed on or before 31.05.2022. Whereas, the Assessing Officer has passed final assessment order on 30.06.2022. The said order is clearly time barred, hence, without jurisdiction. The ld. Counsel further pointed that in identical set of facts in assessee's own case in AY 2018-19, the AO had passed final assessment order beyond limitatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iated in this manner, this creates linkage in the ITBA backend with the ITBA Assessment Module and hence when the DRP passes the order/directions u/s 144C(5) in DRP Module, such order is automatically reflected in the Case History Noting (CHN) of AO (FAO or JAO) with whom the assessment work-item is pending in Assessment Module. b) Where, however, the DRP user initiates DRP proceedings by using the option of manually entering the details of the case in the screen, the DRP Order passed does not reflect automatically inside the case history noting of pending Assessment Proceedings work-item of the AO(JAO/FAO). In the present case, the DRP user had created the pendency by manually entering the details of the 144C order in the screen at the time of initiating DRP proceedings in the DRP Module. The DRP Order u/s 144C(5) dated 23.03.2022 was uploaded by the DRP user in DRP Module of ITBA on 01.04.2022. Since the DRP had created the DRP proceedings by manually entering the details of the case (and not by creating linkage with the assessment proceedings), the DRP order/directions, when uploaded by DRP user on 01.04.2022 in the DRP module in ITBA, did not get automatically reflecte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al assessment order with reference to limitation period for passing the same. The contention of the assessee is that the assessment order is time barred, hence, without jurisdiction. In so far as the date of DRP directions, final assessment order and the date of uploading of the DRP directions on ITBA portal is concerned they are not in dispute. However, for the sake of ready reference these vital dates are tabulated herein below:- 23.03.2022 DRP Directions 01.04.2022 Date of uploading directions on ITBA Portal 23.06.2022 Final Assessment Order. 7. Sub-section (13) to section 144C mandates the time period within which the Assessing Officer is statutorily bound to pass the assessment order after receipt of directions from the DRP. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant provisions of sub-section (13) are reproduced herein under:- (13) Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 (or section 153B), the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TBA portal on 01.04.2022 were communicated to the assessment unit on 13.04.2022. As per the provisions of section 144C(13) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had time up to 31st May 2022(i.e. within one month from the end of month in which such directions are received by the Assessing Officer) to pass final assessment order. The impugned assessment order has been passed on 30.06.2022 which is clearly beyond the time prescribed by the statue. Hence, impugned assessment order is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. We hold and direct accordingly. The assessee succeeds on ground no.1 of appeal. 10. Since, we have allowed appeal of the assessee on jurisdictional issue the other grounds raised in appeal on merits of the additions have become academic, therefore, are not deliberated upon. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM I am unable to persuade myself with the findings of my Ld. Brother regarding his decision in holding that the impugned assessment order passed on 30.06.2022 was clearly beyond the time prescribed by the statute and therefore the impugned assessment order was without jurisdiction. In view of this fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... inputs and for extracting relevant information regarding the DRP order/directions in this case. The requisite inputs/information, to the extent pertaining to ITBA, are submitted as under: 1) Visibility of the DRP order in the Case History/Notings (CHN) of the pending assessment assessment proceedings: a) The DRP Order is reflected automatically in the pending assessment work-item (pending either with FAO or JAO), if DRP user initiates DRP proceedings in the ITBA DRP Module, by using the option of selecting Draft Order u/s 144C in the screen. When DRP proceedings are initiated in this manner, this creates linkage in the ITBA backend with the ITBA Assessment Module and hence when the DRP passes the order/directions u/s 144C(5) in DRP Module, such order is automatically reflected in the Case History Noting (CHN) of AO (FAO or JAO) with whom the assessment work-item is pending in Assessment Module. b) Where, however, the DRP user initiates DRP proceedings by using the option of manually entering the details of the case in the screen, the DRP Order passed does not reflect automatically inside the case history noting of pending Assessment Proceedings ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is further submitted that this office can only provide inputs regarding the workflows in ITBA software and information in respect of any proceedings as available in ITBA system. The legal/procedural aspects {viz. whether uploading of the DRP directions on the ITBA portal amounts to service of the same to AO/FAO, whether faceless scheme lays down any timeframe for the same etc.} vest with the authorities concerned." 4. From the perusal of the above following facts emerge (i) In the present case, the DRP user had created the pendency by manually entering the details of the 144C order in the screen at the time of initiating DRP proceedings in the DRP Module. The DRP Order u/s 144C(5) dated 23.03.2022 was uploaded by the DRP user in DRP Module of ITBA on 01.04.2022. Since the DRP had created the DRP proceedings by manually entering the details of the case (and not by creating linkage with the assessment proceedings), the DRP order/directions, when uploaded by DRP user on 01.04.2022 in the DRP module in ITBA, did not get automatically reflected in the Case History/Noting of the assessment proceedings. (ii) Uploading of the DRP order or Order Giving Effect thereto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the draft order and on 30.06.2022 the order was generated u/s 143(3) of the Act and the demand notice and the computation sheet was generated on 30.06.2022 and thereby the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act was passed on 30.06.2022 by the DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi. 7. Therefore, the facts in this case are as under:- (i) That the DRP order u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 23.03.2022 was uploaded by the DRP user in DRP module of ITBA on 01.04.2022 and since the DRP had created the DRP proceedings by manually entering the details of the case, the DRP order/directions when uploaded by DRP user on 01.04.2022 in the DRP model in ITBA did not get automatically reflected in the Case History/noting of the assessment proceedings. (ii) That on 13.04.2022, the said direction of the DRP were at least visible to the FAO, DC/ACIT(NeAC)-2(1)(1)DEL as it transferred the DRP directions to the AO Assessment Unit on the ITBA. (iii) That on 20.05.2022, the said direction of the DRP were also visible to the JAO, DCIT Circle-16(1) Delhi, as it transferred the DRP directions to the AO Assessment Unit on the ITBA. (iv) That on 28.06.2022, the assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fact that the Assessment Order was passed without issuing a show cause notice with a draft Assessment Order, as was mandatorily required, under Section 144B of the Act, as such, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error. The Hon'ble Court further held that at the same time, considering the fact that the Faceless Assessment Scheme has been introduced recently and therefore, the Revenue ought to have been given some leverage to correct themselves and take corrective measures and therefore the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Assessment Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after following the due procedure, as required under the law, namely, more particularly, under Section 144B of the Act. The Hon'ble Court in view of the above reasons, modified the impugned judgment and the order passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh Assessment Order, after following due procedure, in accordance with law under Section 144B of the Act. The full judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under:- "1. Leave granted. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment Order, after following due procedure, in accordance with law under Section 144B of the Act. All the contentions/defences which are available to the assessee on merits are kept open to be considered by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law and on its own merits. With this, the present Appeal stands disposed of." 10. As seen from the facts mentioned in the Case History/Order-sheet Noting relating to the assessment of this case, the jurisdiction to pass the assessment order in the case of the assessee was transferred on 28.06.2022 from the AO Assessment Unit, Faceless Unit to the JAO, DCIT, Circle-16(1) Delhi on the ground that the assessment could not be finalized by the faceless AU because the amended provisions of section 144B of the Act had become effective from 01.04.2022 and required changes in systems/hierarchy, which was under implementation. Therefore, in the given facts, it was impossible for the FAU to complete the assessment in this case in the faceless system and therefore the assessment jurisdiction in this case was transferred by the FAU to the JAO i.e. DCIT, Circle-16(1) Delhi on 28.06.2022 and the JAO i.e. DCIT, Circle -16(1), Delhi, passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tation. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NFAC vs Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited (supra) this case is a fit case for granting leverage to the Department when there is no tinge of any malafide in the action of the AO in passing the assessment order on 30.06.2022 (even if the limitation date for passing the assessment order in this case is considered to be 31.05.2022) and when no prejudice has been caused to the assessee so far as in making its submissions before the AO before the finalization of the assessment order. Therefore, in view of the fact thatthe amended provisions of section 144B of the Act had become effective from 01.04.2022 and required changes in systems/hierarchy, which was under implementation and the FAO could not pass the assessment order u/s 144C(13) of the Act in this case during the material time due to the transition period, the State Exchequer should not lose its due taxes, if any of the addition amounting to Rs. 830.42 Crores is found sustainable on merits. At the cost of repetition, in the present case, no prejudice has been caused to the assessee so far as in making its submissions before the AO before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2018. The assessee company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation, USA and is engaged in manufacturing, replicating, marketing and distribution of Microsoft retail software products in India including online cloud based services. The draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Act was passed on 28th September, 2021. The draft order was passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, which was objected to by the assessee before Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi (hereinafter 'the DRP'). The DRP passed directions under Section 144C(5) of the Act vide order dated 23rd March, 2022. In view of the directions of the DRP issued under Section 144C(5) of the Act, the assessment order was passed by the DCIT, Circle 16(1), Delhi under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act for the relevant assessment year 2017-18 dated 30th June, 2022. The assessee raised the first jurisdiction issue that the final assessment order passed by the DCIT, Circle 16(1), Delhi under Section 143(3) read with Section 143C(13) of the Act dated 30th June, 2022 is time barred. For this, the assessee has raised following ground Nos.1.1 and 1.2:- "1.1 On the facts and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent based on DIN/PAN-AY screen DC/ACIT (NeAC)- 2(2)(2) DEL AO-Assessment Unit AAACM5586C 2017-18 20.05.2022 Document/Response received from Uploading of document based on DIN/PAN-AY screen DCIT Circle 16(1) Delhi AO-Assessment Unit Microsoft Corporation India P. Ltd. 2017-18 DRP Learned Counsel stated that the learned Judicial Member, while adjudicating this issue, has also tabulated the vital dates in terms of the above report, as under:- 23.03.2022 DRP Directions 01.04.2022 Date of uploading directions on ITBA Portal 23.06.2022 Final Assessment Order. 4. Learned Counsel then drew my attention to the provisions of Section 144C(13) of the Act and stated that this provision mandates the time period of one month within which the Assessing Officer is statutorily bound to pass the assessment order after receipt of directions from the DRP. Learned Counsel for the assessee drew my attention to the relevant Paragraph 9 of learned Judicial Member's order, wherein he has held that the assessment framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) is barred by limitation by observing as under:- "9. We have considered the submissions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O) of Assessment Unit. Again on 20th May, 2022, the directions of DRP dated 23rd March, 2022 were uploaded by the jurisdictional AO i.e., DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi to AO-Assessment Unit. Further, again on 28th June, 2022, the jurisdiction over the assessee was transferred from the AO-Assessment Unit, Faceless Unit to the jurisdictional AO, DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi on the ground that the assessment could not be finalized by the FAO because of the amended provisions of Section 144B of the Act had become effective from 1st April, 2022. He posed a question to himself that what date of receipt is to be considered for the purpose of Section 144C(13) of the Act for passing of assessment order by the jurisdictional AO i.e., DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi. Learned Counsel for the assessee for this relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Louis Dreyfus Company India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT - [2024] 464 ITR 595 (Delhi) and stated that Hon'ble Delhi High Court has considered this issue and held that uploading of directives of DRP on ITBA portal would thus constitute valid and sufficient service and period of limitation as prescribed in Section 144C(13) of the Act would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erpretation is in accord with the intent behind insertion of that provision and the bare text and spirit of that section. Thus, we accord our approval to the interpretation as set out in the aforenoted decisions of the Bombay High Court. 19. Further, the procedure of assessment as provided under Section 144C does not envisage or contemplate the interdiction or involvement of the TPO once a directive has been framed by the DRP. The role of the TPO comes to an end once an order as contemplated under Section 92CA(4) of the Act has come to be framed and remitted to the AO. There was thus no occasion for the TPO having resumed proceedings post the passing of the direction by the DRP on 20 June 2022. 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 paragrap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f receipt of directions by the FAO and limitation as per the provisions of Section 144C(13) would commence from that date onwards. Hon'ble Madras High Court has considered the internal process followed by the Income-tax Department and consequent advisory issued by the ITBA team on visibility of orders passed by DRP to other ITBA users. The relevant discussion by Hon'ble Madras High Court appears in Paragraph 24 to 27, as under:- "24. Thus, it now appears that the internal processes followed by the Income Tax Department make it possible for the user to initiate proceedings in the ITBA portal using two methodologies. According to the Unmasking Report, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis if the DRP user selects the option of 'draft order under Section 144C in the screen, then a link is created with the assessment module such that the Direction passed by the DRP would automatically be reflected in the case history notings of the Assessing Officer, both the FAO and JAO. 25. The second method is where the DRP user has initiated DRP proceedings by using the option of manually entering the details of the Section 144C order in the screen. In such circumstances, the DRP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k item were pending with the FAO, in relation to a PAN number." 8. Further, considering the Advisory, Hon'ble High Court has explained the entire process from Paragraph 29 to 32 as under:- "29. The Advisory makes it clear that the FAO would be able to view the DRP order in the 360 degree screen, since the assessment was pending with that officer. This feature has evidently been provided to ensure that an officer can access/receive the directions of the DRP as soon as it is uploaded by the Secretariat of the DRP and the pending proceedings would be completed within the statutory limitation provided. 30. Hence, there is no protection available to the Department by the DRP user having selected the second manual option, as, an assessing officer, in order to ensure that the assessment proceedings are strictly in accordance with statutory limitation, has been given full and complete access to all inputs required for completion of the assessment including the directions of the DRP immediately on their uploading into the ITBA portal by the DRP. 31. Clearly, limitation cannot be dependent on varying user functionalities which are nothing but internal processes.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n take benefit of a later date. 11. On the other hand, learned CIT-DRShri Rajesh Kumar referred to various judgments on interpretational provisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts as under:- (i) KapurchandShrimalVs. CIT - [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC). (ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 9th July, 2019 in The Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. Vs. CIT in Civil Appeal No.1265 of 2007. (iii) Mohandas Issardas and Ors. Vs. A.N. Sattanathan and Ors. - AIR 1955 Bombay 113. (iv) Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan - 2002 (1) SCR 269 (SC). (v) Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 13th October, 2020 in Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. &Anr. Vs. P. Rajkumar in Civil Appeal No.3427 of 2020. 12. Learned CIT-DR also referred to the decision of Coordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Haier Appliances India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.1521/Del/2022, Order dated 20th September, 2024, wherein it has interpreted the directions of the DRP received by the Assessing Officer vide Paragraph 14 and 15 as under:- "14. In this case, it is undisputed fact that the order of ld. DRP has been "received" Nat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ke of brevity, the same are not being repeated. C. Main Issue: Which date is to be taken as the date of receipt of DRP directions by Assessing Officer? The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has made arguments in the court, stating that the day the DRP directions are uploaded in the systems, that date should be taken as date of receipt for computation of limitation date for passing the final order as per section 144C(13) of the IT Act. In this connection, as argued before the Hon'ble V.P (as third member), both the Hon'ble JM and Hon'ble AM has rejected this argument of the assessee counsel. The Hon'ble JM, (In para 8 of his order) has taken the date of 13.04.2022 i.e. the date on which DC/ACIT NEAC 2(1)(1) has uploaded the directions as date of receipt whereas the Hon'ble A.M has taken the date of 20.05.2022 i.e. date of receipt by JAO as the date of receipt by DRP directions by Assessing Officer for computation of limitation date for passing of final assessment order. (para 8 of para 10 of Hon'ble JM order). Thus, the assessee contention of taking date of uploading of DRP directions as date of receipt by AO has been duly rejected by bot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tax payer. Faceless Assessment brought about a complete change in the assessment procedure and now even the assessee and the department does not know who is the assessing Officer and vice versa. Further, it is humbly submitted that the major reforms like faceless scheme which has brought about a paradigm shift in the working of the entire Income Tax Department, also has the probability of occurrence of some technical /procedural lapses which cannot be ruled out in the initial stages. So, if a technical/procedural lapse has occurred in the case which ideally should not have happened however when we compare it with the implementation of faceless scheme (launched by none other than the Hon'ble Prime Minister), it is humbly prayed that the same should be allowed to be rectified at the department level and department should be given leverage to correct any errors and assessment proceedings should not be quashed because of errors caused because of faceless regime and the State Exchequer should not be allowed to lose its due taxes. E. Decision of Hon'ble supreme court in the case of The National Faceless Assessment Centre and Ors v/s Automotive Manufacturers (P) Ltd. in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was mandatorily required, under Section 144B of the Act, as such, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error. However, at the same time, considering the fact that the Faceless Assessment Scheme has been introduced recently and therefore, the Revenue ought to have been given some leverage to correct themselves and take corrective measures and therefore the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Assessment Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after following the due procedure, as required under the law, namely, more particularly, under Section 144B of the Act. 5. In view of the above for the reasons stated above, we modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and remand the matter to the Assessment Officer to pass a fresh Assessment Order, after following due procedure, in accordance with law under Section 144B of the Act. From the perusal of the above, it is crystal clear that on similar violation of section 144B, the Hon'ble Supreme Court didn't quash the entire proceedings and after considering the faceless schemes launched by Department, remitted the matter to AO. The Hon'ble SC also explic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly on the issue is binding on all courts. Thus, decision on faceless scheme in Automotive Manufacturers case becomes binding on the Hon'ble ITAT. Similar proposition of law has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court/High Courts in various other cases and for the sake of brevity, the same are not being reproduced. G. Further, reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of MohandassIssardas And Ors u/s A.N. Sattarathan AIR, AIR1955BOM113, (1954)56BOMLR1156, 1955CRILJ423, ILR1955BOM319, AIR 1955 BOMBAY 113, 56 BOM LR 1156 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that even the opinion expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all courts. Being pertinent, the relevant extract of the decision is reproduced below: 10. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that every opinion of the Supreme Court would be binding upon the High Courts in India. The only opinion which would be binding would be an opinion expressed on a question that, arose for the determination of the Supreme Court, and even though ultimately it might be found that the particular question was not necessary for the decision, of the case, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. It was pointed out by this Court in Anil Kumar Neotia v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1353 that the High Court cannot question the correctness of the decision of the Supreme Court even though the point sought before the High Court was not considered by the Supreme Court. Thus, as argued in the physical court also, as no other bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has overruled/ deviated form the decision in Automotive Manufacturers, then the decision becomes binding on the Hon'ble ITAT In view of the above noted decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is humbly submitted that it is a judicially settled principle that the ratio decidendi/obiter dicta and even opinion of the Hon'ble apex court is binding on all courts including Hon'ble ITAT in India. Further as the decision in the case of Automotive Manufactures is not overruled, with respect, it is submitted that it has been rightly followed by Hon'ble AM. The facts of the present case squarely fits in the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Automotive manufacturers and it is humbly prayed that it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n at the cost of repetition, it is once again submitted that in the instant case, additions have been made amounting to Rs. 830Cr with a tax demand of around Rs. 549Cr and the state exchequer should not lose its due taxes only because of some technical/jurisdictional issue. The duty of the tribunal doesn't end with quashing of assessments and it has the authority and at the same time duty to correct all errors. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kapur Chand Shrimal v/s CIT (1981) 7 Taxman 6(SC) and being pertinent, the relevant extract of decision is reproduced below. 13. From a fair reading of section 25A it appears that the ITO is bound to hold an inquiry into the claim of partition if it is made by or on behalf of any member of the HUF which is being assessed hitherto as such and record a finding thereon. If no such finding is recorded, sub-section (3) of section 25A becomes clearly attracted. When a claim is made in time and the assessment is made on the HUF without holding an inquiry as contemplated by section 25A(1), the assessment is liable to be set aside in appeal as it is in clear violation of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s default/technical error, the mail could not be sent. The intimation was retriggered and issued only on 01.12.2021 at 2:30AM, meaning thereby the Dup directions were uploaded on 01.12.2021. The facts are mentioned in para 17 and 18 of the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal. It is respectfully submitted that when the DRP directions were sent only on 01.12.2021 then how can anybody take the date of receipt as 30.11.2021 when the same was corrupted because of systems default and could not be sent. Thus, this basic fact was overlooked by the Hon'ble Bench which in itself is sufficient to distinguished the facts of that case with the instant case. ii) Further, in this case, in para 27 it is mentioned that dispatch of electronic record occurs when it enters the computer resource outside the control of the originator and the Hon'ble Bench has taken the date of 30.11.2021 as the date on which the electronic record i.e. DRP directions entered the computer systems. Again the findings of the Hon'ble Bench are incorrect because if the electronic record ie. DRP directions got corrupted and bounced back because of systems default then how can the same be treated as dispatch ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act has been amended from 1.04.2022 and NeAC cannot be treated as assessing officer. It is respectfully submitted that till 31.03.2022 as per section 144B (1), National Faceless Assessment Centre was finalizing the assessment, however, the provisions of section 144B has been amended in the Act from 01.04.2022 and it is mentioned in section 144B(1) that National Faceless Assessment Centre is the coordination body and assessment is not done by the NeFAC Centre. Because of the faceless regime, the national faceless assessment centre is the body which is between the AO and the assessee. The National Faceless Assessment Centre assigns the case to a respective assessment unit and only the correspondence to the assessee and the AO are routed through the NeFAC. The scheme of faceless assessment has been discussed in detail in section 144B(1) and for the sake of brevity, the same are not being repeated. As the case involves the receipt of DRP directions, it is clearly mentioned in u/s section 144B (1)(xxviii) that NeFAC upon receipt of directions by the DRP, will forward such directions to the assessment units. Further in section 144B (1) (xxix), it is clearly mentioned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oading of documents becomes the date and time of receipt by the addressee, as both the originator and the recipient are in the systems. The systems adopted by the Income Tax Department is unique in the sense that in order to bring transparency and accountability in system, the identity of the AO is not known to the assessee as well as to the DRP. Accordingly, the system in order to protect the identity of the AO, another institution or a person is placed between the AO and the assessee and that is National Faceless Assessment Centre. As explained in detail above, the role of NeAC is basically of coordination and facilitation and all the communications are routed through NeAC. Thus as any document is uploaded by DRP is not automatically received by the NeAC on systems. The receipt by NeAC, accordingly cannot be taken as receipt by the AO because both AO as well as NeAC are different and distinct. In fact on the same basis, the other case law relied upon by assessee i.e. decision of Hon'ble apex court in the case of G.S Chatha Rice Mills and Another 2021 2 SCC is distinguishable in our case the addressee i.e. assessing officer is not identifiable, because deliberately his identit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic record shall be determined in accordance with the provision of section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. In this regard, the provision of section 13 of the Act National Information Act, 2000 requires to be reproduced which is as under:- "13. Time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic record. (1) Save as otherwise agreed to between the originator and the addressee, the dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters a computer resource outside the control of the originator. (2) Save as otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee, the time of receipt of an electronic record shall be determined as follows, namely (a) if the addressee has designated a computer resource for the purpose of receiving electronic records,- (f) receipt occurs at the time when the electronic record enters the designated computer resource; or (ii) if the electronic record is sent to a computer resource of the addressee that is not the designated computer resource, receipt occurs at the time when the electronic record is retrieved by the addressee: (b) if the addresse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee are allowed. Since, the entire final assessment is quashed as barred by limitation the adjudication of other grounds becomes academic in nature and they are left open." 16. With regard to the case law of this Tribunal cited by learned CIT-DR of Haier Appliances India Pvt.Ltd. (supra), I want to mention that appeal in ITA No.1521/Del/2022 was for assessment year 2018-19 whereas, in this very assessee's case, i.e. Haier Appliances India Pvt.Ltd.(supra) for assessment year 2017-18 in ITA No.417/Del/2022 vide Order dated 17th October, 2023, the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee on the issue of limitation by observing as under:- "37. Though we are conscious about the fact that the aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) is in the context of service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, but the ratio decidendi squarely applies on the present controversy which relates to dispatch and receipt of electronic record as contemplated u/s 132 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as discussed at Para 30 above. 38. Considering the peculiar facts of the case from all possible angles, we are inclined to accept that the DR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icated to the Assessing Officer through speed post dispatch on 4th April, 2022. These are uncontroverted facts. The final assessment order by JAO i.e., DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi was passed on 30th June, 2022 under Section 144C(13) read with Section 143(3) of the Act. I noted from the case history notings that the DRP directions were uploaded on ITBA portal on 1st April, 2022, which were communicated to the Assessment Unit on 13th April, 2022. A perusal of the report received from ITBA technical team reveals two options for uploading of documents on ITBA portal. The first situation will be that on uploading of order on ITBA portal the assessment work item would automatically get reflected as pending with FAO or JAO, in case DRP initiates proceedings in the ITBA DRP module by using option of selecting draft order under Section 144C of the Act in the screen. The second situation will arise where the DRP initiates proceedings by using option of manually entering details of the case in the screen. In this case, the DRP directions are not automatically reflected in the case history noting of pending assessment work of the Assessing Officer i.e., FAO or JAO. Admittedly, the DRP entered th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....limitation in terms of Section 144C(13) of the Act. 20. The matter shall now be placed before the regular Bench for passing appropriate order in accordance with the majority opinion. PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 30.06.2022, passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for assessment year 2017-18. After hearing the appeal, the Judicial Member allowed legal issue raised in ground no. 1 of the appeal and consequently upheld the order of CIT(A). The Accountant Member opined otherwise and wrote a separate order dismissing ground no. 1 in appeal of the assessee. On account of difference of opinion between the Members constituting the Bench, a reference was made to the Hon'ble President ITAT u/s. 255(4) of the Act. The Hon'ble President vide order dated 17.02.2025 nominated Third Member to decide the reference. The ld. Third Member vide order dated 28.08.2025 concurred with the view of Judicial Member. Consequent to the opinion of Third Member, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday the 04th day of Septembe....