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.

2758/धिल्ली/2022(

नि.व . 2017-18)

ITA No. 2758/Del/2022(A.Y 2017-18)

Voith Hydro Private Ltd., SF-3/C, 2^nd Floor, Rishabh IPEX Mall East Delhi, IP Extension, Delhi 110092 PAN: AABCV-5041-J ...... Appellant अपीलार्थी/

Vs.

बिाम Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ..... Respondent प्रनिवादी/

अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant by : Shri Rajan Vora, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा Respondent by : Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

/

Date of hearing : 29/01/2026 सुिवाई की निथर्थ/

Date of pronouncement : 29/01/2026 घोषणा की निथर्थ/

ORDER आदेश/

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

The assessee in appeal has 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 in appeal for AY in AY 2017-18 has raised this legal issue by way of ground no. 3 of appeal.

2. The appeal is time barred by 207 days. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, we are satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in petition which appears to be bonafide.

Thus, delay of 207 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.

3. 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.);

• Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd., [WP No. 2340/2021 dated 25^th July

2023];

• Teva Pharmaceutical & Chemical Industries India P. Ltd. vs. Assessment Unit/DCIT [ITA No. 4197/Del/2024]

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

• Li & Fung (India) P. Ltd. [ITA No.1820/Del/2022] (Delhi ITAT).

4. Shri Dharam Veer Singh representing the department at the outset raised objection for taking up this appeal 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,