IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER ITA No.1525/Del/2022 [Assessment Year: 2018-19]

[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Assessee by Shri Jaskaran Singh, CA Revenue by Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.01.2026

ORDER

PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM, The captioned appeal is filed by the Assessee challenging the Final Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w. Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act in short) dated

30.04.2022 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2018-19.

2. The Assessee raised additional ground No.1.7 contending that the Final Assessment order dated 30.04.2022 passed by the A.O. is time barred by limitation and is bad in law, as it has been passed beyond the time frame prescribed under section 153(1) read with section 153(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short).

3. We have heard both parties and have perused material available on the record. A perusal of substantive grounds of appeal and the application for admission of additional grounds clearly indicate that this is legal ground assailing the validity of the assessment order and the order of the Ld. TPO. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Thermal Power Company, 229 ITR 383 has held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from the facts on record and have a bearing on the tax liability of the assessee. In the instant case, the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee challenges the validity of assessment order and the order of the Ld. TPO on the ground of limitation. No further documentary evidence is required to be adduced for adjudicating these grounds. We; therefore, admit the said additional grounds of appeal for adjudication.

4. The Ld. Assessee's Representative further 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 No.1.7 of the Assessee.

5. 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.

6. 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 a