आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “आई”, धिल्ली

श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य एिं

श्री संजय अिस्थी, लेखाकार सिस्य के समक्ष IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.

2404/धिल्ली/2015(

नि.व . 2010-11)

ITA No. 2404/Del/2015(A.Y 2010-11)

आअसं.

1021/धिल्ली/2016(

नि.व . 2011-12)

ITA No. 1021/Del/2016(A.Y 2011-12)

AECOM India P. Ltd., Infinity Tower-C, 9^th floor, DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 PAN: AAHCA-1976-H ...... Appellant अपीलार्थी/

Vs.

बिाम Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana ..... Respondent प्रनिवादी/

अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant by : S/Shri Vishal Kalra & Ankit Sahni, Advcoates with Ms. Reema Malik & Ms. Taranjeet Kaur प्रधििािीद्वारा Respondent by : Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

/

Date of hearing : 13/01/2026 सुिवाई की निथर्थ/

Date of pronouncement : 23/01/2026 घोषणा की निथर्थ/

ORDER आदेश/

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

These two appeals by the assessee for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 are taken up together as the assessee in all the above impugned assessment years have challenged validity of the assessment order on the ground of limitation as per the provisions of section 144C(13) r.w.s. 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised this legal issue by way of additional ground of appeal vide separate applications of even date i.e. 20.11.2023 for each of the assessment year in appeal.

2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products P Ltd. reported as 140 taxmann.com 304 (Mad.), submits that the assessment orders in the impugned assessment years are barred by limitation. He submitted that for determining the period of limitation for passing final assessment order the provisions of section 144C of the Act, are to be read with section 153 of the Act. He furnished the date chart tabulating the relevant dates for ascertaining the period of limitation within which the final assessment order was required to be passed and also the dates on which the final assessment orders for respective assessment years were actually passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The ld. Counsel submits that various Benches of the Tribunal have been taking consistent view in quashing the final assessment order passed beyond the period of limitation as per section 144C(13) r.w.s. 153 of the Act. The said legal ground raised by the assessee following ratio laid down in the case of Roca Bathroom Products P Ltd. (supra). To further buttress his submissions, he placed reliance on following Tribunal orders: -

• Aveva Solutions India LLP [TS-681-ITAT-2025 (HYD-TP] (Hyd-Trib.);

• Ethan Energy India P. Ltd. [Ts-704-ITAT-2025 (HYD)-TP] (Hyd-Trib.); &

• Super Brands Ltd. vs ADIT, ITA No. 3115/Del/2009 & 2609/Del/2021 (Del-Trib.)

3. Shri Dharam Veer Singh representing the department at the outset raised objection for taking up these appeals for adjudication. He submitted that the issue is now sub judice before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Division Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. has examined the issue but due to divergent opinions expressed by the Hon’ble Judges, the issue is now referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a Larger Bench. Even otherwise the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. (supra), vide interim order dated 22.09.2023 has held that the operative part of the impugned judgment shall not be cited as a precedent in other subsequent matters. Thus, in light of the said order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court it would not be in judicial propriety to proceed with the identical matter. He further referred to the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PayPal Payments P. Ltd. vs ACIT in Writ Petition (L) No. 30944 of 2023 decided on 13.08.2024, to contend that even the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, after taking note of