आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-A‘ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:302)ी (cid:874)वजय पाल राव, उपाÚ य¢ एवं (cid:302)ी मधुसूदन साव(cid:875)डया, लेखा सदè य के सम¢ ।

Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA(TP) No.465/Hyd/2022 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2018-19)

R.A.K. Ceramics India Vs. Dy.CIT Private Limited Circle 3(1)

Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AACCR6424N (Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: Advocate Kanchun Kaushal राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 109/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by R.A.K. Ceramics India Private Limited (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the assessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (“Ld. AO”) dated 20.07.2022 for the A.Y 2018-19.

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

3. The assessee has also raised the following additional

grounds of appeal:

3.1 After considering the arguments of both the parties on the additional ground, we find that the additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter. It is also pertinent to note that for adjudication of this ground, no fresh material, record or facts are required to be investigated, verified or considered, but the same can be adjudicated on the basis of material and facts already on record. Accordingly, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Limited vs. CIT (229 ITR

383), we admit the additional ground raised by the assessee for adjudication.

4. On perusal of the grounds of appeal and the additional ground raised by the assessee, we find that under the additional ground no. 11 of the appeal, the assessee has raised a purely legal ground challenging the validity of the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“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 20.07.2022 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 2018–19, in the normal course, as per the first proviso to section 153(1) of the Act was up to 30.09.2020. 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 30.09.2021. The Ld. AR also submitted that even after giving the benefit of the extension available under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (“TOLA”), the limitation still remained at 30.09.2021. Accordingly, he argued that since the final assessment order was passed on 20.07.2022, which is much after 30.09.2021, 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