Concentrix Catalyst Technologies (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
144C Can’t Stretch 153 — DRP Directions On Time, But AO Wasn’t – AO Missed Statutory Deadline- ITAT Hyderabad Quashes Time-Barred Final Order
Hyderabad Tribunal examined a purely legal ground challenging validity of final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13). Assessee argued that limitation for passing the final order is governed by s.153(1) r.w.s.153(4). For AY 2020-21, after TP reference, statutory outer limit stood extended to 30.09.2023, whereas AO passed final order only on 29.07.2024, much beyond limitation. The Ld. AR relied heavily on Roca Bathroom Products (Mad HC) & Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer (Bom HC), submitting that s.153 overrides s.144C & that the non-obstante clause in 144C(13) is only to ensure AO passes final order within 1 month of DRP directions, not to enlarge the overall statutory time-bar.
Revenue contended that s.144C is a complete code for eligible assessees due to non-obstante clause & therefore s.153 should not apply. DR submitted that DRP directions were issued on 25.06.2024 & final order passed within one month, hence assessment was valid.
Tribunal, after detailed examination of statutory scheme & following its own earlier order in Aveva Solutions LLP (Hyd ITAT), held that s.153 & s.144C operate harmoniously, are not mutually exclusive, & that limitation under s.153 prevails. It observed that the Madras & Bombay High Courts have clearly held that the overall cap under s.153 cannot be exceeded even if DRP route is invoked. Tribunal noted that the non-obstante clause in s.144C(13) has a limited purpose: to restrict AO from delaying final order beyond one month after DRP directions, but it does not extend or override the statutory bar under s.153.
