आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:302)ी (cid:874)वजय पाल राव, उपाÚ य¢ एवं (cid:302)ी मधुसूदन साव(cid:875)डया, लेखा सदè य के सम¢ ।

BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1170/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year – 2021-2022 Aveva Solutions India The Income Tax Officer, LLP, Hyderabad.

vs. Ward-8(1), PIN – 500 008.

Hyderabad – 500 084.

PAN AAYFA6913G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sri Percy Perdiwala, Advocate िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा /Assessee by: Shri Harsh Shah and CA Karan Jain.

राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा /Revenue by: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 13.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"]

in pursuance to the Directions dated 24.09.2024 of the Disputes Resolution Panel-1 [in short “DRP”], Bengaluru passed u/sec.144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2021-2022.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :

3. Ground no.1 is regarding validity of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on the ground of barred by limitation.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Percy Pardiwala, has submitted that the assessment order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act is barred by limitation as provided u/sec.153(1) read with sub-section(4) of the Act. He has pointed-out that as per the provisions of sec.153(1), the time period for completing the assessment is 9 months from the end of the assessment year and, therefore, in the normal case of assessment, the limitation was available up-to 31.12.2022. Since it is a case of Reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer [in short “TPO”], therefore, sub-section (4) of sec.153 extends the time limit for further 12 months for completing the assessment and consequently, the time limit in the case of the assessee expires on 31.12.2023. Learned Sr. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that since the impugned order was passed on 18.10.2024, therefore, the same is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. He has further pointed-out that even the Draft Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer is not within the period of limitation as provided as it did not allow the period of 30 days to the assessee to file it’s acceptance of variations or file it’s objections, if any, to such variations with the DRP because allowing the said period of 30 days will again cross the limitation provided for passing the Final Assessment Order by 31.12.2023. Thus, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that as per sub-sec.(2) of sec.144C, the Assessing Officer has to give 30 days time period to the assessee to file acceptance or it’s objections with the DRP before the limitation period provided u/sec.153(4) expires. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs., Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd., [2022] 445 ITR 537 (Madras) as well as the Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd., vs., ACIT, International Taxation [2023] 457 ITR 161 (Bombay). Thus, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that the overall limitation for passing the assessment order cannot be exceeded as provided u/sec.153(1) read with sub- sec.(4) of said Section and the limitation as provided u/sec.144C(13) is only a restriction on the Assessing Officer to pass the final order within one month from the receipt of the Directions of the DRP and not enlarging the limitation which is provided u/sec.153 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court has held that provisions u/sec.144C and 153C are not mutually exclusive as both contains the provisions relating to sec.92CA and are