CIT International Taxation-2 Vs Hyundai Rotem Company (Delhi High Court)
Delhi HC order on What constitutes date of receipt of DRP directions under Section 144C(5) of the IT Act for computing the limitation period for passing the final assessment order under Section 144C(13)
Summary: The Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT International Taxation-2 Vs Hyundai Rotem Company, addressed the critical issue of determining the “date of receipt” of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions for calculating the limitation period for the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass the final assessment order (FAO) under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue argued that receipt meant physical delivery and that the Faceless Assessment Scheme (FAS) and electronic communication norms were inapplicable to International Taxation cases. However, the Court rejected this, holding that the date of receipt is the date the DRP directions are uploaded on the ITBA portal with a valid Document Identification Number (DIN), making the date of physical receipt immaterial. The court reinforced that electronic uploading constitutes dispatch and simultaneous receipt, drawing support from Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the principles of the E-Assessment Scheme. The Court applied this established principle to the facts of the case, noting that the DRP directions were uploaded on the ITBA portal on May 26, 2022. According to Section 144C(13), the AO was required to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month of receipt, setting the mandatory deadline as June 30, 2022. Since the AO passed the Final Assessment Order on July 1, 2022, the order was passed one day late. The Delhi High Court, aligning with its own precedents and those of other High Courts, dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, concluding that the FAO was time-barred and therefore invalid in law (void ab initio).
