Calcutta High Court
(International Taxation & Transfer … vs Signify Holding B.V on 6 May, 2025
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam
OD-6
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)
ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT/102/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), KOLKATA
VS.
SIGNIFY HOLDING B.V.
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
DATE: 6TH MAY, 2025
Appearance:
Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. Ankan Das, Adv.
Mr. Anindya Kanan, Adv.
Ms. Shradhya Ghosh, Adv.
...for Appellant
Mr. A.K. Dey, Adv.
...for respondent
The Court : This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section
260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order dated
17.1.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata in
ITA No. 314/Kol/2023, for the assessment year 2020-21.
The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for
consideration :
“i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Hon’ble ITAT has committed substantial error in law by not
2considering that the DIN generated copy of the DRP order was
not served to the AO and the A.O only received physical copy
of the order on 3.1.2023 and the A.O passed final assessment
order on 6.2.2023 well within limitation date to pass final
assessment order as per section 144C(13) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961?
ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Hon’ble ITAT has committed substantial error of law that
order of DRP was served by post to the AO on 03.01.2023 and
thereby the assessment order was passed within the time
limit as specified in the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.2.2023?”
We have heard Mr. Vipul Kundalia, learned senior standing counsel
appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. A.K. Dey, learned Advocate for the
respondent/assessee.
There is a delay of 308 days in filing the appeal. Though the explanation
offered is not fully satisfactory, since this appeal has been filed under Section
260A of the Act, this Court is required to consider whether any substantial
questions of law arises for consideration. For such purpose, we exercise our
discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application IA No:
GA/1/2025 is allowed.
The assessee preferred the appeal before the learned Tribunal against the
directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C(5) of the
Act dated December 22, 2022 for the assessment year 2020-21 passed against a draft
assessment order under Section 144C of the Act by the Assessing Officer.
3
The first ground of challenge to the said order was by contending that the
Assessing Officer had passed the order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of
the Act on February 6, 2023 without appreciating the fact that the time limit for
passing the order expired on January 31, 2023 in terms of the provisions contained in
sub-section 13 of Section 144C of the Act. Apart from the above ground, the assessee
also challenged the order on merits. The learned Tribunal took up for consideration
the question of limitation at the first instance and after taking note of the decision in
the case of Vodafone Idea Ltd., (2023) 156 taxmann.com 258 (Bom.) and certain other
decisions of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, took note of the common functions
module in Instruction No.3, issued by the Directorate of Income Tax (System), New
Delhi dated September 17, 2019 on the subject of “roll out of facility for system
generated documents (i.e. intimation letter)” containing Document Identification
Number (DIN) for documents issued outside the system but uploaded manually in the
Income Tax Officers Application (ITOA). In this regard, reference was made to the
Instruction contained in paragraph 7. After taking note of the said Instruction, the
learned Tribunal considered the facts and found that the instruction issued by the
DRP along with intimation dated December 22, 2022 was uploaded in the portal on
the same day and was available to the Assessing Officer for passing the assessment
order which ought to have been passed on or before January 31, 2023 in terms of
Sub-section 13 of Section 144C of the Act. However, the final assessment order was
passed by the Assessing Officer on February 6, 2023 which is beyond the statutory
limitation prescribed under Sub-section 13 of Section 144C of the Act. Therefore, the
learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the final assessment order passed is
beyond the limitation prescribed under the Act and therefore it is bad in law and
accordingly the same was quashed.
4
On facts we find that the learned Tribunal has taken note of the relevant dates
and come to the conclusion that the final assessment order was passed beyond the
period of limitation fixed under sub-Section 13 of Section 144C of the Act. Thus, we
find no questions of law, much less substantial questions of law, arising for
consideration in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
The application IA No:GA/2/2025 also stands dismissed.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ.)
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
sm/SN.