TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... liable to be quashed. 2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Act, pursuant to the directions of the DRP, has been passed beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act and is therefore liable to be quashed as barred by limitation. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment passed in the case of Fiberhome India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, New Delhi ITA No. 91/2024 [Delhi High Court] [05.02.2024); and Rolls Royce India Pvt. Ltd. us. DCIT, TP 3(2)(1), Delhi ITA No. 252/Del/2022 [ITAT Delhi] [04.07.2025). In support of the above ground, a date-wise tabulation is provided below for ease of reference: Sr. No. Particulars Date 1 Date of DRP Directions under Section 144C(5) 19.04.2022 2 Date of intimation Letter of DRP Directions 27.04.2022 3 Late date for passing the final assessment order [as per Section 144C(13) 31.05.2022 4 Date of Final Assessment Order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 27.06.2022 Whether Order Passed Within Limitation No (Barred by time) 3. That on the facts and in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d barred by limitation the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in both these appeals the DRP passed directions u/s. 144C(5) of the Act on 19.04.2022 and these directions of DRP were uploaded in ITBA portal on 27.04.2022 vide intimation letter for order u/s. 144C(5) by generating DIN. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that since the DRP directions were uploaded on portal and intimated to the assessee as well as the AO on 27.04.2022 the last date for passing the final assessment order as per provisions u/s. 144C(5) of the Act is one month end of the in which such direction is received i.e. 31.05.2022. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 was passed on 27.06.2022 which is clearly barred by limitation and therefore, the same is null and void, bad in law and void-ab-inito. Reliance was placed on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT, International taxation-2, New Delhi vs. Hyundai Rotem Company in ITA No.304/ 2025 and CM APPL 50009/2025 dated 29.10.2025. Referring to the said decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court especially para Nos. 41,45, 46 and 49, the Ld. Counsel for the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the end of the month in which the DRP directions are received. The DRP directions were intimated and uploaded in ITBA portal on 27.04.2022 by generating DIN and document number as said above. Therefore, as per provisions of section 144C(13) of the Act the final assessment order should have been passed within one month from the end of the month in which the directions of DRP were received and in this case such date is 31.05.2022. However, the final assessment order was passed on 27.06.2022. 10. The revenue's contention is that since the AO received DRP directions on 09.05.2022 as per order sheet of ITBA case history, the final assessment order was required to be passed on or before on 30.06.2022. We observed that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court precisely answered this very question holding that the date of uploading of the DRP directions in the ITBA portal by generating DIN / document number is the date of communication of the directions to the AO and the limitation for passing the final assessment order starts running from that date and not the date of receipt of DRP directions physically by the AO. The relevant portion of the decision is as under :- 41. In fact, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sider Section 144C (13) read with Section 282(1)(C) of the Act and Section 13 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. 44. On this proposition, the High Court of Telangana in Rapiscan Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), while referring to E-Assessment Scheme of 2019, Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited (Supra) and Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Supra) has held that once the DRP directions are uploaded on the portal, it would mean that the DRP/originator has lost control over it on the date and time the directions were uploaded on the portal and it must be treated to be "receipt" by the recipient i.e., AO on the same date. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced as under:- "14. The E-assessment Scheme, 2019 ([2019] 417 ITR (St.) 12) placed reliance on section 13 of the Information Technology Act for the purpose of delivery of electronic record. The relevant portion reads thus (page 21 of 417 ITR (St.)): "10. Delivery of electronic record.-(1) Every notice or order or any other electronic communication under this Scheme shall be delivered to the addressee, being the assessee, by way of, - (a) placing an authenticated copy thereof in the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the Dispute Resolution Panel directions and the same being accessible to the Faceless Assessing Officer, it was only on August 23, 2023, that the same were received by the Faceless Assessing Officer. We cannot accept this because, the E-assessment Scheme itself provides that all communication is deemed to have been received by the assessment units concerned once received through the National e- Assessment Centre. Thus, once the e-assessment centre is in receipt of the Dispute Resolution Panel directions, the period of limitation runs from that day. There is no requirement of a deep dive in an analysis of the phrase „upon receipt of directions‟ as it appears in section 144C(13) of the Act. The fundamental principle of interpretation is to assign words their natural, original and precise meaning, provided that the words are clear and take into account the purpose of the statute. It is settled law that a provision should be interpreted in its literal sense and given its natural effect. This is the elementary golden rule of interpretation of statutes. Since there is no ambiguity pertaining to the phrase 'upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5) of secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be received by the Assessing Officer on June 30, 2022. A conjoint reading of section 144C(5) and (13) makes it clear that upon receipt of the directions issued under section 144C(5), it is imperative for the Assessing Officer to complete the proceedings within one month from end of the month in which such a direction is received. Thus, the key words used in section 144C(13) are "upon receipt of directions issued under sub-section (5) '. 24. Although, the Delhi, Bombay and Madras High Courts have already taken a view and we respectfully agree with that once such directions of Dispute Resolution Panel are uploaded on the portal, the Dispute Resolution Panel lost control over it and the date on which it entered the portal, the recipient, i.e., the Assessing Officer comes to know about it. 25. To elaborate, it is profitable to refer to section 13(1) of the Information Technology Act. This sub-section deals with "despatch of electronic record" and envisages that "despatch" of an electronic record is when it enters the computer resource outside the control of originator. Indisputedly, in this case, the 'originator' is the Dispute Resolution Panel. Subsection (za) of sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 30. In order to meticulously examine the aspect of 'despatch' and 'receipt',in the present case, it is apt to quote the relevant portion of the letter dated March 5, 2024 filed along with I.A. No. 1 of 2024 in the present matter, which reads as under: '2. In this regard, it is hereby stated that the directions dated June 30, 2022 were uploaded on Income-tax Business Application portal on June 30, 2022. Further, the physical copy of the directions was also sent to the Assessing Officer on June 30, 2022 through speed post.' (emphasis supplied) 31. The Income-tax Department through communication dated June 30, 2022 (annexure P- 19) informed that the order under section 144C(5) dated June 30, 2022 is having Document No. (DIN) ITBA/DRP/M/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043689612 (1). This is a system generated document and it does not require any signature. A conjoint reading of communications dated January 30, 2024 and March 5, 2024 (annexure P-18) and communication dated June 30, 2022 (annexure P- 19) leaves no room for any doubt that the Dispute Resolution Panel's directions were despatched on June 30, 2022 and also uploaded on the portal on the same date. Thus, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itation as prescribed under Section 144C (13) of the Act, would be liable to be computed from the date of uploading of the order and the AO shall pass the Assessment Order, bearing that crucial date in mind. 47. If that be so, the crucial date being 26.05.2022 and the date of one month from the end of the month on which DRP order/ directive was received by the AO would be 30.06.2022. In the case of the appellant/Revenue, the FAO was passed only on 01.07.2022, which is clearly barred by limitation as contemplated under Section 144 C (13) of the Act. 48. Mr. Agarwal has relied upon the judgments, as noted below along with the propositions of law laid down therein: i. GAIL (India) Ltd (Supra):- The Court found that on a refund claim the limitation period starts from the "date of service" of the final assessment order. This means that simply uploading the order to a customs portal is not enough. The assessee must receive formal intimation of the order for the one-year limitation period under Section 27(1B)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962, to begin. Furthermore, Merely because the Customs Department has uploaded the final assessment order on portal is not sufficie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to parties/memo details; jurisdiction changes do not postpone limitation. (iv) Earlier cases (Arvind Construction, ITAT) reconciled but inapplicable to Section 260A. (v) Post-pronouncement, departmental awareness presumed; certified copy preparation time excludable if applied immediately. (vi) Receipt by CIT(Judicial) suffices. (vii) For common orders, limitation from earliest receipt by any officer. (viii) Administrative instructions cannot override statutory limitation start date. v. Canon India P Ltd (Supra):-The Supreme Court held that only the "proper officer" who assessed/cleared goods under Section 17 can issue show-cause notices for duty recovery under Section 28 of the Act.. DRI issued notice for misclassification of cameras as non video (based on 29-min recording limit) was invalid. The Review petition (2024) partially allowed, clarifying DRI officers can be empowered via notifications under Section 4(2); 2021 judgment per incuriam for overlooking Section 28(11) validation upheld. vi. Arvind Construction Co P Ltd. (Supra):- This Court held that limitation for reference under Section 256 to High Court starts from the date the jurisdictional CIT receive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from legislation. xi. M. M. Rubber & Company(Supra):- The Supreme Court held that when an authority is empowered to exercise a function or make a decision affecting parties' rights, it must do so within the prescribed limitation period. The order or decision becomes effective from the date it is signed by the authority, marking the point when the authority no longer has the power to alter or redraft it (i.e., when there is no locus poenitentiae). This date, when the order is made public, notified, or leaves the authority‟s control, is considered the date the order is "made" or "passed." The date when the order is communicated to the affected party is irrelevant for determining whether the authority exercised its power within the prescribed limitation period. xii. Mohammed Meeran (Supra):- In this case, The Supreme Court held that under Section 263(2), the 2- year limitation for revision runs from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was "made," not "received" by the assessee. Word "made" is key; receipt date irrelevant. The revision order passed within 2 years of making was valid, despite delayed communication. 4....