आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:373)ी रिवश सूद,(cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735) एव ं(cid:373)ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद(cid:735) सम(cid:407) |

Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.963/Hyd/2024 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2020-21)

M/s. Concentrix Catalyst Vs. Dy.CIT Technologies (P) Ltd Circle 1(1)

Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AABCE3119N (Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: Shri D Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 26/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Concentrix Catalyst Technologies Private Limited (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the assessment order passed by Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Hyderabad (“Ld. AO”) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 29.07.2024for the A.Y.2020-

21.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

3. On perusal of the grounds of appeal of the assessee, we find that under the ground no. 2 of the appeal, the assessee has raised a purely legal ground challenging the validity of the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO for AY 2020-21 under under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) the Act in accordance with the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”) under section 144C(5) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as “the final assessment order”), on the ground that it is barred by the limitation prescribed under section 153 of the Act. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to adjudicate the said legal ground first. In this regard, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the final assessment order passed by the Ld. AO on 29.07.2024 is beyond the period of limitation and therefore invalid and liable to be quashed on this ground alone. He pointed out that the time limit for passing the assessment order for AY 2020-21, in the normal course, as per the first proviso to section 153(1) of the Act was up to 30.09.2022. He further submitted that since the case of the assessee was referred to the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (“Ld. TPO”) under section 92CA(1) of the Act, by virtue of section 153(4) of the Act, the limitation for completing the final assessment stood extended by 12 months, making the outer limit at 30.09.2023. Accordingly, he argued that since the final assessment order was passed on 29.07.2024, which is much after 30.09.2023, it is barred by limitation. In this regard, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. (445 ITR 537) and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. vs. ACIT (International Taxation) (457 ITR 161) to contend that the limitation under section 153 of the Act prevails over section 144C of the Act. He further submitted that the overall limitation for passing the final assessment order cannot exceed the limit prescribed under section 153(1) read with section 153(4) of the Act.

He further argued that the limitation under section 144C(13) of the Act is only a restriction on the Ld. AO to pass the final assessment order within one month of receipt of directions of the Ld. DRP but does not enlarge the statutory limitation prescribed under section 153 of the Act. The Ld. AR emphasized that both the Hon’ble Madras High Court and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court have held that section 144C and section 153 of the Act are not mutually exclusive, and that the overriding effect of section 153 of the Act prevails in determining limitation. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the Bench that the final assessment order is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, the Learned Departmenta