Income Tax Assessment Order Signed Within Time but Communicated After Statutory Deadline Held Time-Barred: ITAT [Read Order]
ITAT held that an assessment order, though signed within the prescribed limitation period, would be time-barred if it was communicated to the assessee after the statutory deadline.
![Income Tax Assessment Order Signed Within Time but Communicated After Statutory Deadline Held Time-Barred: ITAT [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/06/02/2138796-income-tax-assessment-order-statutory-deadline-time-barred-itat-kolkata-taxscan.webp "Income Tax Assessment Order Signed Within Time but Communicated After Statutory Deadline Held Time-Barred: ITAT [Read Order]")
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata Bench, quashed the final assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act after holding that the order had been served upon the assessee beyond the period prescribed under the Act. The assessee, Versuni India Home Solutions Ltd., was subjected to transfer pricing assessment proceedings...
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata Bench, quashed the final assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act after holding that the order had been served upon the assessee beyond the period prescribed under the Act.
The assessee, Versuni India Home Solutions Ltd., was subjected to transfer pricing assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2020-21. A draft assessment order was passed under Section 144C, against which the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).
The DRP issued directions under Section 144C(5) on 27.06.2024. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order dated 31.07.2024 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act. However, the order was served on the assessee only on 21.08.2024 through email.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the assessment order had been communicated beyond the statutory time limit and was therefore barred by limitation. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise v. M.M. Rubber & Co. (1992) and various High Court decisions.
However, the Revenue contended that Section 144C(13) required only completion of the assessment within the prescribed time and that signing of the order within the limitation period was sufficient compliance.
The Tribunal comprising Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) and Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) observed that under the E-Assessment Scheme, an assessment order attains legal effect only upon communication to the assessee and not merely upon being signed by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal further observed that an order could be said to have been passed only when it was put beyond the control of the Assessing Officer by way of dispatch or communication. Since the assessment order, though dated 31.07.2024, was served on the assessee only on 21.08.2024, it was barred by limitation.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the assessment order was time-barred and quashed the same.
The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
