RapiscanSystemsPte.Ltd v. 1.ADIT(|NT-TAX)-2

Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the interim order dated 16r12t2022 in r.A. No. 1 of 2022 in w p. No.44B91 oI 2022 as extended from time to time and dismiss the present writ petition in wp No. 4489 1 of 2022 with costs. WRIT PETITION NO: 449'15 oF 2022 Between: Rapiscan systerns fte.l-td., 240 Pines lndustrial t'l{Sg"y?:Bi."J::[:ft"J1$.31 bT'diff ;'p;ie;"ii'ieig-n-siigaporeRepresentedbvautl Kumar GuPta ...PETITIONER AND

1. 2 3 ADIT (INT-TAX)-2, Aaykar Bhawan' Opposite LB Stadium' Basheer Bagh' Hyderibad, Telingana 500004 Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Aaykar Bhawan' Opposite LB Stadium' #$";;H;s[, iivderauao, Telangana 500004' Director General of lncome Tax, Aaykar Fhawan, 6;;i;;, dagh-, Hyaeraoad, Telansana 500004 opposite LB stadium' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction' more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorariquashingtheimpugnedfinalassessmentorderdated30.0S.2022(,ftsl assessment order'' issued without DIN) and corresponding demand notice' computation sheet and penalty notice issued by the Respondent No l and also the impugned final assessment order prepared' issued and served on O1'O9'2O22 ("second assessment order'') and corresponding demand notice' computation sheet and penalty notice issued by the Respondent No 1 for being null and void' illegal, without jurisdiction and being barred by limitation' Prayer is amended as per Court Order dated Og 122024 vide l A'No l of 2024 ' lA NO: 1 oF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant an interim stay and prohibit the Respondents from taking any action in pursuance to the impugned final assessment order dated 30 'O8 2022 ("first assessment order") issued without DIN) and corresponding demand notice' computation sheet and penalty notice issued by the Respondent No' 1 and also the impugned final assessment order prepared, issued and served on 01 09'2022 ("second assessment order") and corresponding demand notice, computation sheet and penalty notice issued by the Respondent No. 1, issued in the case of the Petitioner, during the pendency of the hearing and final disposal of the accompanying writ Petition. lA NO: 'l OF 2023 Between: 1 2 3 l9lI-lUIrlp-2, nalgl^l\awan, opposite LB sitadium, Basheer Bash, Hyoerabad. I elangana 500004 Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Aaykar Bhawarr, Opposite LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana - SOOOO+. Director General of lncome Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Opposite LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana'- SOOOO+ ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND Rapiscan Systems Pt 0'1 Singapore, Foreig Gupta e. Ltd.,240 Pines lndustrial Building, Macpherson Road No. 07 n-Singapore Rep. by authorized rdpresentative Ashish Kumar ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition under Section i 5l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 16.12.2022in1.A. No. 1 of 2l.o22in w.p. No.44915 of 2022 as ex{ended from time to time and dismiss the present writ petition in W.P. No. 44915 of 2022 with costs. counsel for the Petitioner in both the writ petitions: Ms. ANANyA KApooR Counsel for the Respondents in both the Writ petitions: SRI VIJHAY K PUNNA, SENIOR S.C. FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the foltowing: COMMON ORDER 3 SP,J & DT.GRR,J Wps_44891 & 44915 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI WRIT PE.TITION Nos.44891 AND 44915 0F 2022 COMMON ORDER @er Hon'ble SP,J) Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of the parties, the matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order'

2. The facts are taken from W.P.No -44915 of 2022' As per the facts narrated by the petitioner, it is a foreign company baSed on Singapore having branch off,rce and project office in India' The petitioner is engaged in distribution and installation of securit5r and inspection systems (equipment) such as airport security x-ray machines and metal detectors to its customers in India' The petitioner is a distribution company and does not manufacture / develop the equipment and does not have its own IP as well.

3. These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution take exception to the final assessment order dated 3O.O8.2O22 (frrst assessment order) issued without DIN' In addition, the final assessment order dated Ol 'O9 '2022 is also 4 SP,J & Dr.GRR, Wps_44891 & M9tS of 2O22 called in question on the singular ground that troth the orders are 'r, barred by limitation.

4. In W.P.No.449 l5 of 2022, the assessment year is 2olg_lg, whereas in W.P.No.44891 of 2O22, the assessment year is 2019_ 20.

5. The petitioner hled its revised income, tax return for Assessment Year 2Ol8-2O19 on 31.03.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessmenr. Accordingly, a notice dated 22.o9.2or9 was issued under Section 14r)(2) of the Income Tax Act, 196l (Income Tax Act) followe,l by certain more notices and questionnaires issued under sectio n A2(rl of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has filed acknowledgment of return of income for Assessment years 2org-2org and, 2or9-2o2o (Annexure P- 1). It is pleaded that the petitioner, by. different responses mentioned in paragraph No.g of Writ alfidavit pursuant to aJoresaid notices, submitted a[ the necessary informat.ion along with the releval t documents to respondent No. 1 for scrutiny assessment

6. In turn, respondent No. 1 completed the assessment in petitioner's case and passed the draft assessment ord er dated 5 SP,J & Dr-GRR,J Wps-44891 & 44915 of 2022

27.Og.2021 for Assessment Year 2}lA-lg proposing additions in this regard. The petitioner filed' its objection before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)' The DRP passed its direction/order dated 30.06.2022 and declined relief to the petitioner'

7. The respondents issued frnal assessment order on 3O.O8.2O22 a-long with computation sheet' demand draft and penalty notice dated 3O'O8'2O22' Pertinently' the aforesaid documents do not bear alY DIN' Contentions of the petitioner: 8. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner' by taking this Court to Section 144C(13) of Income Tax Act' submits that the statute prescribes a time limit within which assessment order could be passed' Along with I'A'No' 1 of 2024 ' the document dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure P-18)' is hled which shows that the directionsofDRPwerecompliedwith.Heavyreliarrceisplacedon document dated o5.o3.2024 to highlight that the DRP',s directions dated 30.06.2022 were uploaded on ITBA portal on 30'06'2022' The physical copy of said direction was also sent to assessing officer on 30 -06.2022 through speed post' For the sarne purpose' the document dated 30 '06 '2022 (Annexure P-19) is relied upon' Since the date of uploading of order and date of order i'e'' 6 SP,J & Dr.GR wps_44891 & M975 of 2022

30.06.2022 is same, it is argued that the order for eill practical purposes carne to the notice of the assessing officer on

30.06.2022. Thus, as per Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, the assessment order could have been passed on or before

31.07.2022. In the instant case, the impugned order is passed on

30.08.2022, ald therefore, the same is barred trv law and liable to be set aside.

9. The facts of V/.P.No.449 15 of 2022 are that the objections before DRP were filed on 26.10.2021, the DRp issued directions on

30.06.2022. The DRP informed on 05.O3.2024 that its directions were uploaded on the portal on 30.06.2022 itsell., it is erddent from ITBA portal letter which is placed on record with I.A.No. I of 2024 in W.P.No.449 15 of 2022. Tlnus, in this case also, the last date to pass final assessment order was 31.O7 .2022.

10. To bolster the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reiiance on the Dethi High Court judgment in Louis Dreyfus Company India private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxl, Bombay High Crourt Judgment in Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Central processing Centre2 and Madras 'w.c.1c1.ts3st of 2022, dated 30.01.2024 '12023; t"*mann..om 258 (Bombay) I I i 7 SP,J & DT.GRR,J Wps_2t4891 & 44915 of 2022 High Court judgment in Taeyang Metal India lPl Ltd' v' Deputy commissioner of Income-Tax3. ln addition, she placed reliance on Section 13 of the Informatioa Technology Act, 2OOO (I'T'Act) and the E-Assessment Scheme, 2O19 (Scheme) (Annexure P-25)' The singular contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the originator/ sender of DRP has uploaded its order on the portal, the originator has lost control over it and it is uploaded on the same day on the portal' Thus, as per aforesaid statutory provision, scheme and above judgments of three 'High Courts, it shall be presumed that the assessing ofhcer came to knowabouttheorderofDRPon3O.O6'2O22itself'Thus,asper Sub-Section 13 of Section l44C of the Income Tax Act' he could have passed the assessment order by 3l'O7 '2022' The order passed beyond that period is illegal ald unsustainable' Contention of Revenue: 11. Sri Vrjhay K Punna, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue, submits that the order of DRP was received only on O5.O7.2022 through web mail. Reliance is placed on the said mail communication dated O5-O7 '2022 (Annexure A) frled with the additional counter. Furthermore, on the basis of averments of the ' 1202+1 160 taxmann.com 536 (Madras) 8 SP,J & Dr.GR Wps_4489I & 4491.5 of ZOZ2 counter, it is submitted that the question of violation of time limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the fncome Tax Act as stated by the petitioner in the additional afficlavit is not acceptable for the following reasons: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) " The intimation letter for order unde:: Section 144C(5) dated 30.O6.2022 is not uploading the directions of DRp brl .,1" generation oi DIN " onLy.. The entire order/directions of DRp *.." .J.7*a in ITBA on O5.O7.2O-22. Thus, there i" g"p't"i*eerr what is uploaded, processed by system 'ria l"J".t"d to the assessing officer. the circumst;;-rr;'these gaps in system, have been aopreciated tV ftaf, Olfhi in a recent judgment in rhe case 3r.*:r:1o'p;li.an;i-ir; Ltd.in rTA No. l52l / Det/2022 dated 20.09. iriZ+.---', Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Faceless Assessment Centre, v. Automotive lt{-anufacturers h/t.Ltd.4, Dcrr v. Abacus R;;iE;;;; # ,.uu a,,d in the case of AddI.CIT v. Multiptie" B;;;; Sotutions Prrt Ltd6 hetd that the rer corrective-".".,.."-ffi ;i.'J'.S,.'",il:tiT".::.:"f; the assessing offrcer who ir"" ;; ;;;;iJr.,rioor, his mind and pass an order in, accordance with iie.p.o,,i"ion" of Section 144 C (13) of the Act. Unless, the assessine,3ffice1 who has to act rrpon the order of the learned ohp.eceirresil;.,;, f,elshe would not be in a position to el:n know aboui ihe iasstng of the order by the rearned DRp. il;;;;:;,iof'0" :J"*:f 3",;,;:, "oo, an order *hi"h ha";ot e,r,en been In the instant case. intimation of DRp received in ITBA and also by mail on oS.oZ.2oit;.";; ,"'"?""i.,g orn"". and the final order has been p;J #i,i",iror2 which expected l o lzoz:1 cs: rrn z:o '(2023) 4s3 rrR 224 o (2023) 4s3 trR 233 9 SP,J & DT.GRR,J Wps 44891 & 449L5 of 2022 (") is well within the time limit allowed under Section 144 C ir st or the Income Tax Act. As per the provisions of b""tio, I44 C (13) of the Act, the assessing oflicer is required to pass final assessment order within one month of the month in which such direction is from the received. ".rd Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court of Commissioner of Income Tax v' in the ""i" Mohammed Meeran Shahul HarneedT in C'A'No'6204 of 2O2l dated 07.10.2021 whetein the Supreme Court explained as to what is 'receipt'and what is 'made'as Per thi provisions of the Act. The provisions of the Act reads ttr"i ,rpo.t 'receipt' of the directions issued under sub sectiorr (5)..., the assessment has to be completed within o.r. ..ro.rdh from the end of the month in which such directions is'received'. L2. Lastly, Sri Vijhay K Punna placed reliance on. the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Faceless Assessment Centre (supra), which is followed in other judgments' He also placed reliance on judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (supra) to bolster the submission that language of the statute should be given effect to and when plain language leads to only one conclusion, there is no reason to deviate from such meaning' FINDINGS: 13. Before dealing with rival contentions' it is apposite to consider Sections 144C(13) and 282(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act arrd Section 13 of the I.T. Act which reads thus: ' 1zozz1 t scc tz sL- 10 sP,.J & Dr.GR M/ps_r14891 & M975 of 2022 "Segtlgn l44C: Refereace to dispute resolution panel:- (1) to ( 12). . . (13) Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub_section (5), the Assessing Ofhcer shall, in conformity with the directions. complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained insection 153 or section 1SgB, l_he assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end ,rf the month in which such direction rs received." "Section 282: Serrrice of notice generally:- (1) The service of a notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act (hereafter in this section referred to as .communication") mq7 be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof, to the person thefein named,- (a) and (b). . (c) in the form of anY electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Techn olosv Act. 2000 (21 <tf 2OOOI : or, "Section 13: Time and place of despatch and receipt of electronic record.:- (1) Save as otherwise agreed to between the ori addressee, the despatch of an electronic when it enters a computer resource outside the co the originator. ginator and the record occurs n trol of (2) Save as otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee, the time of receipt of an electro*nic record shall be determined as follows, namely:_ (a) if the addressee has designated a computer resource for the purpose of receiving electronic ieco rds,_(i)receipt occurs at the time when the electronic record enteis tl. designated computer resource; or(ii)if the electronic record is sent to a computer resource of the addressee that is not the designatet computer resource, receipt occurs at the time when the elec[rcnic record is retrieved by the addressee; l 11 sp,J & DT.GRR,J Wps_214891 & 4491,5 of 2022 (b) if the addressee has not designated a computer resource along with specihed timings, if any, receipt occurs when the electronic record enters the computer resource of the addressee (Emphasis Supplied)

14. The E-Assessment Scheme, 2Ol9 placed reliance on Section 13 of the I.T. Act for the purpose of delivery of electronic record. The relevant portion reads thus: "Delivery of electronic record: 1O. (1) Every notice or order or any other electronic communication under this Scheme shall be delivered to the addressee, being the assessee, by *ay oL (a) placing an authenticated copy thereof in the assessee,s registered account; or an authenti address of (b) sending representative; or cated copy thereof the assessee or - to the. registered his authorized (c) uploading an authenticated copy on the assessee,s Mobile App: ald followed by a real time alert (2) and (3) xxx (+) Tfe time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic record shall be determined in accordance wittr the provisions of Section 13 of the Information Technolory Act, 20OO (21 of 2o0o)." (trmphasis Supptied) The Delhi High Court in Louis Dreyfus Company India

15. Private Limited (supra) held as under: "15. In terms of sub-section (13) of Section l44C of the Act, the AO is mandated to complete the assessment _in conformity with the directions as framed by the DRp. That very provtston commands the AO to complete the assessment within one month fr ch such a direction is receive d. om the end of the month in whi L2 SP,J & Dr.G Wp:;_44891 & M9L5 of 2022

17. As is manifest from a reading of sub-section (13) of Section l44C of the Act, the AO is not accorded any discretion in the framing of an order of assessment once directions have come to be framed by the DRP. In fact, the provision requires the AO to frame an order of assessment in conforrrLity with those directions and without providing any further opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This principle of law has been aflirmed by the Bombay High Court in the aforenoted paragraphs of Vodafone Idea and in Shell India Markets Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Nationdl Faceless Assessment Centre & Orslt). The relevant paragraph of the decision in Shell IndizL are extracted hereinbelow: '10. Sub-section (13) of Section 144C, therefore, is very clear inasmuch as the Assessing Oflicer shall, upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), in conforrnity with the directions. complete tJle assessment vrithin one month from the end of the month in which such direcLion is received. Sub- section (13) a-lso provides that the Assessins Oflicer can complete the assessment without providing any further opportunitv of being heard to the assessee. This means that the moment the Assessing OIIicer receives the directions under sub-section (5), he has to straightaway complete the assessment and he does not even have to hear the assessee. The Assessing Oflicer sha1l sirnply comply with the directions received from the DRP within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received.'

20. Undisputedly, the directive of the DRP came to be uploaded on the ITBA portal on 24 Jlune 2022. It ts additionally stated to have been dispatched through Speed Post to the third respondent (TPO) and the fourth respondent (Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissior-rer of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Neu Delhi) ,:n 27 J:urre 2022. It is thereafter that the TPO appears to have passed the order dated 25 Jttly 2022.

21. We, horvever note that paragraph aQ) of the tr-as, 2019 makes the following salient provisions:- '4(2). A11 communication among the assessment unit. review unit, verifrcation unit or technical unit or with the assesse or arv o![er person with respect to the information or documents or evidence or any other details, as may be necessary for the purposes of making a-n assessment under this Scheme shall be through the National e-asse ssment Centre.' 13 SP,J & DT.GRR,J Wps_44891 & 44975 of 2022

22. lt is thus manifest that as per the provisions of E-as, 2OIg, all orders, notices and decisions have to be necessarilv uDloaded on the ITBA portal artd as part of the larser faceless assessment regrme which now holds the held. The uploading of the directive of the DRP on the ITBA portal would thus constitute valid and suflicient service and the period of limitation as prescribed in Section I44Ci3 ) of the Act would that crucial date in mind. be liable to be computed bearin Once the aforesaid position becomes clear, it is evident that the order of assessment, if at all could have been framed lastly by 31 July 2022. There has thus been an abject failure on the part of the hrst respondent to compiy with the mandatory timelines as incorporated in the aforenoted provisions' Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned order of assessment and the consequential penalty p.o".Ldi.tg" are thus liable to be set aside on this short score alone." (EmPhasis SuPPlied)

16. The Bombay High Court in Vodafone Idea Ltd' (supra) opened as under: "15. Annexed to the afhdavit of Mr. Satish Sharma is a screenshot of ttre CHN-Case History Notings of the Dispute Resolution Panel proceedings uploaded on the Income-tax Business Application portal. The screenshot is of the page as it appears on the Income-tax Business Application portal' A pirusal of the screenshot of Case History Notings of the Dispute hesolution Panel read with the afhdavit hled by Mr' Satish Sharma, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and Ms' Anne Varghese, the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, clearly indicate that once the DRP directions are uploaded and the Document Identihcation Number ("D IN") is senerated, which is also visible on the first pase of the hard coov of the DRP direc tions, the said document is visible to the AO of the Faceless Assessment Unit (,FAU ") havin lurlsdiction over the Perrnan ent account number f the assessee concerned. Thus. both the afhants agree that the o Dispute Resolution Panel directions once uploaded on the Income-tax Business AppIication portal are automaticallv visible to the Faceless Assessing Ofhcer, if anv assessment work item is nding related to a particular permanent account number. the petitioner were Admittedly assessment proceedings of ute Resolution Palel pending. Thus, undoubtedly the Disp Business ApPlication directions uploaded on the Income-tax 74 SP,J & Dr.GR Wps_44891 & 4491,5 of 2022 portal were readily and clearly visible and Faceless Assessing Officer of the assessee. a<;cessible to the 16

17. Mr. Singh made all attempts to persuade us that despite the Income-tax Business Application portal displaying the bispute Resolution Panel directions and the same being"a.ccessible to the Faceless Assessing Ofhcer, it was only on Augist 23,2023, that the same were received by the Faceiess Assessing Offir;er. We cannot accept this because, the E_assessr4ent Scheme itself . ffi.__b.r.-: Ieceivgd -bv the assessment uniti coiE ed once received the e_ %@ "f th. 99 irr s.cti.r, l44Cl13l . of the Act. T#--fu"drm.;ffi principle of interpretation is to assign words their natural, original and precise meaning, provided that the words are clear and take into account the purpose of the statute. It is setUea Uw thai a provision should be interpreted in its literal sensr: and given its natural effect. This is the elementary gotden nrle of interpretation of statutes.. Since there ls no amUiguity pertaining to the phrase "upon receipt of the directions issired under sub- secfion (5) of section l44C of the Act, the Assessing Officer shall. . .". there is no requirement of delving in a further in_depth analysis of tht. clear provision. "rs 18 to 20 2 1 . Thus, if the provisions of section 144C as mandated by the adhered.ro the entire object of p.ouiding :j:t:::,:.1:,-",.i.,tty ror an alternate redressal mechanism in the iorm of oispud Resolution Panel stand defeated. That is not the ir.ltention of the I-egislature when the provision was introduced in the Act. Section 144C(lO) of the Act provide that the directions of Dispute Resolution panel are binding on the Asserssing Officer. Pl^r:llll* to_pass a;ry order in telms of the provision, the Assesslng Uff]cer cannot be permitted to defeat the r:ntire exercise and render the same futile. When a statllte prescribes the power to do a certain thing in a certain *"rl ,".. the thing done in that way arrd other methods oii..fo.-..r... ... ;r-t1:,,?. rorDldclen. Once the statute has prescribed a limitation period 15 SP,J & DT.GRR,J Wps-,44891 & 44975 of 2022 for passing the final order, it is expected that the internal proc;dure if the Department should mould itself to give meaning fo and act in aid of the provision' Any procedural defect (there is ;;;; i" this case) in the internal mechanism of the working of E- assessment Scheme, cannot operate against the interest of the assessee. Hence, the Faceless Assessing Officer cannot be believed that the Dispute Resolution Panel direction was received by him only on August 23, 2023 despite being uploaded on the Iricome-tar Business Application portal on March 25' 2O2l ' Th.e i.iirt" "t tl.e part of Depattmenf to follo* the section l44C ;f the Act is not merely a procedural irregularity' but is an illegality and vitiates the entire proceeding'" 17. The Madras High Court in Taeyang Metal lndia lPl Ltd' (supra) followed the principle laid down by the Delhi High Court in -procedure the aforesaid judgment.

18. The common string traveling through the judgments of the aforesaid three High Courts leaves no room for any doubt that the Courts have taken a uniform view that Section 144C(13) mandates the assessing oflicer to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which such a direction is issued' lnterestingly, the Bombay High Court considered paragraph No.a(2) of Scheme of 2Ol9 which makes it clear that all communications alnong the assessment unit, review unit, verification unit or technical unit or with the assessee or vitth anA otter person shall be through the national e-assessment centre' The use of words 'any other person' makes it very wide and shows the intention of the scheme makers that they intended to bring A_r 76 sP,i & DT.GR 'Wps_44891 & 4/lg1-5 of 2O2Z within its fold a_ll nature of communications which shall be made through nationa-l e-assessment centre.

19. The Delhi High Court in Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited (supra) further held that it is obligatory under the scheme to necessarily upload the communlcation on the ITBA portal. Upon uploading the information on the portaJ, the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 744c,.(l3l of the Income Tax Act would be liable to be computed bearing that crucial date in mind 20- Importa,tJy, the Bombay High court in vodafone rdea Ltd. (supra) poignantly held that as per the said scheme once e_ assessment centre is in receipt of DRp directions, the period of limitation runs from that date. No further deep,liys is required in view of language of Section r44c(r3) of the Incorrre Tax Act. 2I. Sri Vijhay K punna, learned Standing Counsel for revenue, placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme co,rt in the case of National Faceless Assessment Centre (supra). The said case is arising out of faceless assessment procedure envlsaged in Section 1448 of the Income Tax Act. The Apex Court while upholding the view of the High court observed that faceless assessment scheme 77 SP,J & DT.GRR,J Wps_44891 & 449L5 of 2022 came into being recently and therefore, the revenue ought to have been given some leverage to correct themselves and take corrective measures. The said observation of the Supreme Court is related to the faceless regime arrd cannot be stretched and made applicable in this case. This is trite that the precedential value of a judgment relates to the point which has been actually decided and not what is logically flowing from it (see Dr' (Mrs') Chanchal Goyal v. State of Rajasthaas). It is equally settled that a singular different fact or point may change the precedential value . of a judgment (see Bhawnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (Pf Ltd.e).

22. So far, the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (supra) is concerned on which reliance is placed by Sri Vijhay K Punna, it is profitable to note that in the said case, the Supreme Court considered Section 263(21 of the Income Tax Act, in the said Section the word used is 'made' and not 'receipt of the order'. The Supreme Court emphasized the cardina,l principle of the law that provision of statute is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from the provisionofthestatute.Inotherwords,thisiswellsettledthat ' zoog (:) scc +ss ' (zoo3) z scc tt1 j SP,J & Dr.GR Wps_44891 & 44915 of 2022 when language of statute is clear and unambiguous, it has to be given effect to irrespective of its consequences (see Nelson Motis vs. Union of Indialo).

23. The pivotal question is whether in ,riew of the language employed in Section 144c(13) whether directions of DRp can be said to be received by the assessing officer on 30 .06 .2022. A conjoint reading of section 144c (s) and (13) rnakes it clear that upon receipt of directions issued under Section 144C(5), it is imperative for assessing officer to complete the proceedings within one month from end of the month in which such a direction is received. Thus, key words used in Section l44C(13) are hpon receipt of directions issued under Sub_Section (5),

24. Although, Delhi, Bombay and Madras High Courts have already talen a view and we respectfully agree with that once such directions of DRp are uploaded on the porta-I, the DRp lost control over it and date on which it enterecl the portal, the recipient i.e, the assessing ofhcer comes to know about it.

25. To elaborate, it is profitable to refer to Section 13(1) of the I.T.Act. This StLb-Section dea_ls with .despatch of electronic record, 'o 1992 1a; scc ztt 19 SP,J & DT.GRR,J Wps_44891 & 449a5 of 2022 and envisages that 'despatch' of an electronic record is when it enters the computer resource outside the control of originator' Indisputedly, in this case, the 'originator'is the DRP. Sub-Section (zal of Section 2 of the I.T.Act defines the word 'originator' and reads thus: "Section 2: Definitions (za) ---originator or transmits an message to be sent, generated, stored or tran other person but does not inciude an intermed rson who sends, message of caus means a pe v electronic generates, stores es any electronic smitted to any (EmPhasis SuPPlied|

26. Once 'originator' enters a computer resource outside his control, 'despatch'takes place. Sub-Section 2 (a) of Section 13 of the I.T.Act deals with 'receipt' which makes it clear that 'receipt' occurs at the hme when the electronic record enters the designated computer resource. Thus, the meaning of 'despatch' or ,receipt, is elaborately defined in aforesaid sub-sections of Section 13 of the I.T.Act. The word tomputer resource' is also defined under Section 2(k) of the I.T.Act, which reads thus: "Section 2: Definitions (k) - computer resource means computer, computer system, computer-network, data, computer data base or software;" In the instant case, parties have taken a diametrically

27. opposite view on the aspect whether the directions uploaded- aJe )i SP,J & Dr.GR Wps_44891 & 44975 of 2022 the portal on 30.06.2022 can be treated to be'receipt'on the part of the assessing officer. Sri Vijhay K Punna, learned Standing Counsel for revenue contends that 'receipt' wilil be the date when the e-mail was received by the revenue containing the DRP directions i.e., on 05.O7.2O2O.

28. As per the view taken by the aforesaid three High Courts there is no doubt that when the originator/DRP sends its directions in computer resource outside its control, it amounts to 'despatch' and similarly, 'receipt' takes place when saicl electronic record enters the computer resource.

29. Section 282 of the Income Tax Act on u,hich reliance was placed by Sri Vghay K Punna, learned Standing Counsel for revenue makes it clear that in Sub-Section 1(c) of Section 282, the communication through electronic recofd as per Chapter IV of the I.T.Act was recognized and treated to be service of notice generally. Chapter IV of the I.T.Act contains Section 13, which envis2ges time, place of 'despatch' ald 'receipt' of electronic record.

30. In order to meticulously examine the aspect of .despatch, ==-_1rd 'receipt', in the present case, it is apt to quote the relevant 2L SP,l & Dr.6RR,J w ps_M897 & 4tr975 ol 2022 portion of letter dated O5.O3.2024 fi.led along with I.A-No.1 of 2024 in the present matter, which reads as under: "2. In this regard, it is hereby stated that the direction dated 30.06.2022 were uploaded on ITBA portal on 30.06.2022 Further, physical copy of the Directions was also sent to the Assessing Ofhcer on 30.06.2022 through Speed Post." (EmPhasis SuPPIied) 31 The Income Tax Department through communication dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-19) informed that the order under Section 144C(5) dated 30.06.2022 is having Document No'(DIN) ITBA/ DRP/ M / I 44C(5) / 2022-23 / 10436896 12( 1). This is a system generated document and it does not require any signature' A conjoint reading of communications dated 30 'Ol '2024 and O5.O3.2024 (Annexure P-13) and communication dated

30.06.2022 (Annexure P-19) leaves no room for any doubt that DRP's directions were despatched on 30.06 -2022 and also uploaded on the portal on the same date' Thus, the DRP/ originator had lost control over it on the date and time the said directions were uploaded on the portal. Hence, same must be treated to be a .receipt, by the recipient i.e., the assessing officer on the same day i.e., 30-06.2022. (See paragraph No'26'7 of Suman Jeet Agarwal v. Income-tax Otflcerll, where the Delhi " 1zozz1 ats ra st'l t SP,J & Dr.GR wps_44891 & 44975 of 2022 High Court poignantly held that the portal of the department is ttre 'computer resource in the control of the depr:rtment').

32. In view of forgoing discussion, there is no cavil of doubt that assessing officer received the DRP's directions on 30.06.2022 and therefore, the limitation must be counted from that date and not from O5.O7.2022. The impugned assessment orders dated 3O.O4.2O22 and OI.O9.2O22 that were issued counting the limitation from 05.07.2022 in both the Writ Pet.itions are liable to be set aside as the sarne are issued beyond permissible period of limitation.

33. In the result, both the Writ Petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned assessment orders datecl 30.08.2022 and O1.O9.2O22. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE coPY/' o,,,3il'*To#tliH0k / ,EcrtoN dt''"=* To, One fair copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL (For His t-ora;[$'s Kind Perusal) One fair copy to the HON'BLE Dr' JUSTIGE G'RADHA RANI - ' '1fot Her Ladyship's Kind Perusal)

1. 11 L.R. CoPies. i. if,"-U"0175-ecretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Advocates Association Library, High Court 3. The Secretary, Telangana Affairs, New Delhi. Buildings, HYderabad -/ 7

4. The. A.DIT (INT-TAX)-2, Aaykar B-h_awan, Opposite LB Stadium, Basheer _ lgOh,_Hyderabad, Teiangand sOoOO+ 5. The chief commission6r of rncome Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, opposite LB . Stadium, BasheerBagh, Hyderabao, fetano'anJ5ijoooZ -"-"' vt'vvur(v 6. The Director Generarbf rnlqme Tai, naytii aha*ar, opposite LB stadium, _ Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telanqana SO'OOO+ 7. One CC to Ms. ANANYA KAPOOR, Advocat; [OPUC] B. Ohe CC to SRt VtJHAy K PUNNA, SenioiS.bliori,i,irr" Tax [OpUC] 9. Two CD Copies MP BSR I" rys:+Ft 'u- l HIGH COURT ( DATED:0910112025 .rZC 1:" l:i 1e r [, 1 \', co;ff"b =:::-_:\ :sra,.i;-..,._ "^ r\ E e irl;; .',. Tt.': r6iroen W.P.Nos.44891AND 44915 OF 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS o,[ a crP', .17 Wv