Giesecke & Devrient (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Assessment Time-Barred Under Section 144C(13): ITAT Quashes DRP-Based Order Passed Beyond One-Month Limit
The Delhi Bench “H” of the ITAT, in Giesecke & Devrient (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (AY 2018-19), quashed the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) as barred by limitation, holding that the statutory timeline prescribed under section 144C(13) is mandatory and non-negotiable.
In this case, the DRP directions dated 17.03.2022 were uploaded on the ITBA portal on 30.03.2022. However, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order only on 30.05.2022, i.e., beyond one month from the end of March 2022, in clear violation of section 144C(13). The Revenue argued that limitation should be reckoned from the date the DRP order was internally received by the AO/TPO. The Tribunal rejected this contention.
Relying squarely on the jurisdictional Delhi High Court judgment in Louis Dreyfus Company India (P.) Ltd. and the Bombay High Court decisions in Shell India Markets and Vodafone Idea, the ITAT held that uploading of DRP directions on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service, and the limitation period must be computed from that date alone. Any internal movement or later receipt by departmental officers is irrelevant.
Since the final assessment order was passed beyond the permissible time, it was held to be void ab initio. Once the assessment itself was quashed on the jurisdictional ground, all transfer pricing additions (software services, ITeS, intra-group services, receivables) and other issues became purely academic and were not adjudicated. The assessee’s stay application was also dismissed as infructuous.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in full, reaffirming that non-adherence to section 144C timelines vitiates the entire assessment
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
