IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘H’ NEW DELHI)

BEFORE YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6907/DEL/2014 (A.Y. 2007-08)

ITA No.6907/DEL/2014 (A.Y. 2007-08)

ITA No.6907/DEL/2014 (A.Y. 2007-08)

ITA No.6907/DEL/2014 (A.Y. 2007-08)

ITA No.6907/DEL/2014 (A.Y. 2007-08)

ITA No.6907/DEL/2014 (A.Y. 2007-08)

ITA No.6907/DEL/2014 (A.Y. 2007-08)

ITA No.938/DEL/2016 (A.Y. 2007-08)

ITA No.938/DEL/2016 (A.Y. 2007-08)

ITA No.938/DEL/2016 (A.Y. 2007-08)

ITA No.938/DEL/2016 (A.Y. 2007-08)

ITA No.938/DEL/2016 (A.Y. 2007-08)

ITA No.938/DEL/2016 (A.Y. 2007-08)

ITA No.938/DEL/2016 (A.Y. 2007-08)

ITA No.7015/DEL/2014 (A.Y. 2007-08)

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The captioned Appeal in ITA No. 6907/Del/2014 filed by the Assessee and the Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 7015/Del/2014 are by challenging the order dated 30/10/2024 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). The Assessee has challenged the order of the A.O. passed u/s 154/143(3)r.w. Section 144C of the Act dated 20/11/2015 in ITA No.

938/Del/2016.

2. The Assessee raised Additional Grounds of Appeal No. 35 in the Appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No. 6907/Del/2014 contending that the Final Assessment order came to be passed on 30/10/2014 30/09/2024 pertaining to A.Y 2007-08, which istime barred by limitation and is bad in law, as it has been passed beyond the time frame prescribed under section 153 of the Act. The Ld. Assessee's Representative relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. [2022] 445 537 (Madras) and also plethora of orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench sought for allowing the Additional Ground of Appeal No. 35 of the Assessee.

3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the issue of limitation arising from the interplay between Section 144C and Section 153 of the Act is presently unsettled and pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 20569-20572/2023 therefore, deciding the very same issue by this Tribunal at this stage would be premature, thus submitted that the Tribunal cannot decide the issue of limitation in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the Ld. Department's Representative sought for deferral of adjudication of the present Appeal and also the issue of limitation. The Ld. Department's Representative has also filed detail written submission.

4. The identical submissions of the parties have been considered by us in the case of Teva Pharmaceutical & chemical Industries India Private Limited Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department/DCIT in ITA No. 4197/Del/2024 vide order dated 19/01/2026. The Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal while and rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the Revenue and also the request of the Department for deferring the hearing of the Appeal, held as under:-

“8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The preliminary contention of the Revenue is that, the issue regarding the limitation arising from the interplay between Section 144C and 153 of the Act is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said issue has already been referred to Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. Further, there is an Interim Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 22/09/2023against citing the Judgment (of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay) of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd., therefore deferral of adjudication on the limitation issue is the most appropriate course by the Tribunal instead of deciding the said issue.

9. It is the matter of record that Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order da