IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Tata Consumer Products Ltd. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata (erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.) Vs.

1, Bishop Lefroy Road, Kolkata-

700020.

(PAN: AABCT0602K)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for:

Appellant by : Shri Ram Sehadri, CA Respondent by : Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.05.2025

O R D E R

Per Bench :

The captioned two appeals filed by the assessee is against the orders of the Ld. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata u/s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) dated 31.05.2022 for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19.

2. Shri Ram Sehadri, Ld. CIT(A) represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Ld. DCIT, DRP-2, New Delhi has categorically mentioned that the DRP direction u/s. 144C(5) for the AY 2017-18 had been uploaded to the ITBA portal on 25.02.2022. A copy of the e-mail has been placed before us which reads as follows:

4. Similarly, for the assessment year 2018-19, the e-mail specifically clarifies that the directions of the DRP u/s. 144C(5) was uploaded on the ITBA portal on 07.03.2022, which reads as follows:

5. It was the submission that consequently, for the assessment year 2017-18 the assessment order gets time barred as on 31.03.2022 for the AY 2017-18 and 30.04.2022 for the AY 2018- 19. It was the submission that as per the provisions of section 144C(13) the time limit for completion of the assessment order was one month from the end of the month in which the directions are received from the DRP. It was the submission that the assessment orders have reportedly been passed on 21.05.2022 which was beyond the period of limitation for both the assessment years. It was the submission that consequently, both the assessment orders are liable to be quashed.

6. The Ld. AR has also placed before us the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in which one of us was the author in the case of Vibgyor Printing & Packaging P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 2615/Kol/2024 dated 04.04.2025 wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in para 3 to 3.1 has held as follows:

“3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and also gone through the various documents filed through a voluminous paper book and have also gone through the Ramco Cement case (supra). We find that the undisputed facts in this case are that the DRP passed an order u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 30.09.2024. Admittedly, this order was uploaded on the same date in the ITBA. Thereafter, the Ld. AO passed his order u/s 144C(13) of the Act on 07.11.2024. At this juncture, the provision u/s 144C(13) deserves to be extracted:

“144C. ……………………

(13) Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 [or section 153B], the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received.”

It is clear that the operative portion of the said section is “within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received.” In this respect, we find that there is no discussion in the Ld. AO’s order as to why he has chosen to pass an order on 07.11.2024 without ostensibly considering the deadline as 31.10.2024. In this regard, we are considerably persuaded by the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Ramco Cement (supra), from which various relevant portions deserve to be extracted as under:

“6. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the date of receipt of the directions of the DRP by the Assessing Officer is '31.01.2022' or '03.02.2022'. Th