Explaining the interpretation of the limitation in the context of an order passed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and uploaded on the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) portal, the Delhi High Court made it clear that the date of uploading of the DRP’s order on the ITBA portal constitutes the date of receipt for computing limitation. Once uploaded, the DRP loses control over the document, and the AO is deemed to have received it electronically.
While further clarifying the difference between the concept of faceless procedure vis-à-vis electronic communication, the Court held that the exclusion of International Taxation cases from the Faceless Assessment Scheme (FAS) does not mean their automatic exclusion from electronic communication.
The Court found that when the Revenue Department themselves have uploaded the direction of DRP on their portal, they cannot disown that such a process is excluded from the mode of communication prescribed under the FAS. Further, the intimation letter to the respondent having a DIN number would affirm that the same is the date of uploading of the DRP directions.
The Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar observed that in the context of the e-assessment scheme, uploading of the order on the ITBA portal constitutes dispatch/issue and receipt, under Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 282 of the Income-tax Act.
The Bench also emphasized that Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act is a self-contained, non-obstante clause requiring the AO to complete assessment “within one month from the end of the month in which the directions are received”. Since in the present case, the DRP’s directions were uploaded on May 26, 2022, and the final assessment order was passed on July 01, 2022, i.e., beyond the time limit of one month, the Bench concluded the assessment order as time-barred and void.
Briefly, in this case, the case of the respondent, a Korean company engaged in producing railway vehicles, locomotives, and passenger coaches, was referred to a Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who proposed an upward adjustment amounting to Rs. 7.36 crores in respect of ‘provision of administrative support service’. Based on the TPO’s report, the AO assessed the income of the respondent at Rs. 21.01 crores.
Upon receiving objections from the respondent, the DRP directed the AO/ TPO to re-verify the margin computation in respect of the comparable selected for benchmarking. Accordingly, the TPO revised the adjustment to Rs. 6.12 crores, and resultantly, the AO assessed the income at Rs. 19.77 crores. Dissatisfied, the respondent approached the ITAT, which set aside the assessment being barred by limitation as per Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act.
Cases Relied On:
Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited vs. DCIT – W.P.(C) 15381/2022
Vodafone Idea Ltd. vs. CPC – [2023] 459 ITR 413 (Bom.)
Cases Distinguished:
Principal Commissioner, Customs, Ahmedabad Commissionerate v. GAIL (India) Ltd. – [2025] 151 GSTR 306 (Guj)
Suman Jeet Agarwal v. Income-Tax Officer – [2022] 449 ITR 517 (Delhi)
Canon India P Ltd v. Commissioner Customs (2021) 18 SCC 563
CIT v. Arvind Construction Co. P Ltd – (1992) 193 ITR 330 (Del)
CIT v. ITAT – (2000) 245 ITR 659 (Del)
Jaipuria Samla Amalgamated Collieries Ltd v. CIT – (1972) 3 SCC 317
Commissioner Central Excise v. Raghuvar India Ltd – (2000) 5 SCC 299
F. Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi – (2012) 4 SCC 307
CCE v. M. M. Rubber & Company – 1992 Supp (1) SCC 471
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed – (2022)1 Supreme Court Cases 12
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sudhir Choudhri & Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Rajiv Choudhrie – 2005 SCC OnLine Del 726
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. – ITA No. 52 of 2015
Appearances:
Advocates Sunil Agarwal, Viplav Acharya, Priya Sarkar, and Utkarsh Tiwari, for the Appellant/ Revenue
Advocates Ananya Kapoor, Soumya Singh, and Sumit Lalchandani, for the Respondent/ Revenue
