Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Final Income Tax Assessment Passed beyond One Month from DRP directions Barred by Limitation: ITAT Quashes order [Read Order]

The tribunal ruled that failure to follow the mandatory time limits prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act for passing a final assessment order barred by limitation and void.

Final Income Tax Assessment Passed beyond One Month from DRP directions Barred by Limitation: ITAT Quashes order [Read Order]
X

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed a final assessment order because it was issued beyond the statutory period of one month from the end of the month in which the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions were received.Eaton Power Quality Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee) filed return of income for Assessment Year 2021-22 on March 9, 2022, declaring a total income...


The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed a final assessment order because it was issued beyond the statutory period of one month from the end of the month in which the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions were received.

Eaton Power Quality Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee) filed return of income for Assessment Year 2021-22 on March 9, 2022, declaring a total income of ₹42,17,79,822. Due to international transactions exceeding ₹374 crores, the Assessing Officer (AO) referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).

The TPO proposed an adjustment of ₹29,88,48,209, leading the AO to issue a draft assessment order. The assessee filed objections against the draft order before the DRP on January 19, 2024. The DRP issued its directions on September 21, 2024, which were received by the AO on the same day.

Aggrieved by the AO’s order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. The assessee argued that under section 144C(13), the AO was required to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP directions were received.

The assessee argued that since the directions were received in September 2024, the deadline to pass the order was October 31, 2024.

The two-member bench comprising Aby T. Varkey (Judicial Member) and Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member) observed that Section 144C was a self-contained provision designed for the speedy disposal of disputes for "eligible assessees".

The tribunal highlighted that the statutory time limit is not a mere formality but a mandatory requirement. It observed that failure to strictly adhere to the limitation period under Section 144C(13) was an illegality.

The 2025 Income-tax law—mapped line-by-line to what you already know. Click here

The Bench relied on jurisdictional precedents, including the Madras High Court decision in Taeyang Metal India Pvt. Ltd., which held that assessment orders issued beyond the one-month window from the end of the month of DRP receipt cannot be sustained.

It concluded that the final assessment order was passed on November 28, 2024 after the October 31, 2024 deadline and thus the AO acted without jurisdiction. The tribunal set aside the order of the lower authority and quashed the final assessment. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Eaton Power Quality Pvt vs The DCIT , 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2238 , ITA No.231/Chny/2025 , 18 December 2025 , Vishal Kalra , ARV Sreenivasan
Eaton Power Quality Pvt vs The DCIT
CITATION :  2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2238Case Number :  ITA No.231/Chny/2025Date of Judgement :  18 December 2025Coram :  ABY T. VARKEY, AMITABH SHUKLACounsel of Appellant :  Vishal KalraCounsel Of Respondent :  ARV Sreenivasan
Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019