TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the 'ld. AO') under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi (DRP) order dated 28.03.2024 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are reproduced as under: "General Grounds 1. The assessment order passed by the Ld. AO in pursuance to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") is a vitiated order as the Hon'ble DRP erred both on facts and in law in confirming additions made by the Ld. AO/Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") to the Appellant's income by issuing an order without appreciation of facts and law. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves to be allowed to add, delete or amend any other grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing as we may be advised. The assessee prays accordingly." 2.1 Subsequently, the assessee raised an additional ground as under:- "4.4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated April 30, 2024 passed by the Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO), digitally signed and uploaded on ITBA portal dated 01 May 2024, pursuant to the directions dated March 28, 2024, is barred by limitation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aded on 28.03.2024 and, therefore, the final assessment order had to be passed on or before 30.04.2024. From the copy of the final assessment order, it is obvious that though the order was dated 30.04.2024, the same was digitally signed on 01.05.2024. This fact is also evident from the order-sheet details available on the portal wherefrom it is seen that though the order was uploaded on 30.04.2024, the same was digitally signed on 01.05.2024 and hence was time barred. 4.2 In support of his arguments, ld. AR has placed reliance on several judicial pronouncements, some of which are as under: (i) Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO [2022] 143 taxmann.com 11 (Delhi)(HC), wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the date of issue of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d hence it cannot be said that the order had been passed beyond limitation. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the relevant sequence of events as evident from the ITBA portal was as under: 6.1 From above sequence of events as well as from the copy of assessment order placed before us, it is evident that the assessment order had been digitally signed on 1/5/2024. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of SumanJeet Agarwal vs. ITO (supra), other cases relied upon by the assessee and discussed herein before, we are of the considered view that the order was complete only after the digital signatures on 1/5/2024 and hence the same was barre....