ITAT Quashes Time-Barred Assessment Orders u/s 144C(13) of Income Tax Act, 1961; Favours Assessee

The ITAT Delhi, in a recent case, ruled in favour of the company, holding that assessment orders for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 issued after the statutory deadline under Section 144C(13) are not valid as per the law. Since the orders were time-barred, both assessments were set aside.

A company named Luminous Power Technologies Private Ltd. recently approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi, challenging the final assessment orders for Assessment Years (AY) 2017-18 and 2018-19 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13(1), New Delhi (tax department). The case was decided on December 05, 2025. The case is related to the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19.

<div class="related-article-inline">Also Read<a href="/high-court-cbdt-must-condone-delay-caused-by-software-glitch-mechanical-rejection-set-aside-402177.html" class="related-link">High Court: CBDT Must Condone Delay Caused by Software Glitch; Mechanical Rejection Set Aside</a></div>

For the assessment year 2017-18, the company had declared its income of Rs. 166.06 crore; however, the tax authorities, after scrutinising the return, made an addition to the company's income and declared the total income of the company at Rs. 169.48 crore. Similarly, for the assessment year 2018-19, the company had declared its total income at Rs. 231.92 crore; however, the tax department, after processing the return, declared the total income of the company at Rs. 233.54 crore.

Before the tribunal, the company raised a key issue: that the assessment orders in question were issued beyond the statutory time limit stated under section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per this section, the tax department must issue the assessment within the period of one month from the end of the month in which the directions were received, after receiving instructions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). As per the stated section, the statutory deadline to issue orders was April 30, 2022; however, the tax department issued these orders on May 15 and 18, 2022, respectively.

To support its argument, the company cited several earlier judgments based on the same issue, where the courts had held that assessments passed beyond the statutory deadline are considered invalid. However, the tax department argued that the assessment was valid and was based on merit.

<div class="related-article-inline">Also Read<a href="/high-court-it-services-to-foreign-parent-are-export-of-services-not-intermediary-402180.html" class="related-link">High Court: IT Services to Foreign Parent Are ‘Export of Services’, Not Intermediary</a></div>

When the tribunal heard the arguments of both sides, it concluded that the company was right and hence ruled that since the assessments were given after the prescribed time, they were not valid and set aside both assessment orders for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19.

ITAT Quashes Time-Barred Assessment Orders u/s 144C(13) of Income Tax Act, 1961; Favours Assessee

The ITAT Delhi, in a recent case, ruled in favour of the company, holding that assessment orders for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 issued after the statutory deadline under Section 144C(13) are not valid as per the law. Since the orders were time-barred, both assessments were set aside.

A company named Luminous Power Technologies Private Ltd. recently approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi, challenging the final assessment orders for Assessment Years (AY) 2017-18 and 2018-19 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13(1), New Delhi (tax department). The case was decided on December 05, 2025. The case is related to the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19.

[related id="402177"]

For the assessment year 2017-18, the company had declared its income of Rs. 166.06 crore; however, the tax authorities, after scrutinising the return, made an addition to the company's income and declared the total income of the company at Rs. 169.48 crore. Similarly, for the assessment year 2018-19, the company had declared its total income at Rs. 231.92 crore; however, the tax department, after processing the return, declared the total income of the company at Rs. 233.54 crore.

Before the tribunal, the company raised a key issue: that the assessment orders in question were issued beyond the statutory time limit stated under section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per this section, the tax department must issue the assessment within the period of one month from the end of the month in which the directions were received, after receiving instructions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). As per the stated section, the statutory deadline to issue orders was April 30, 2022; however, the tax department issued these orders on May 15 and 18, 2022, respectively.

To support its argument, the company cited several earlier judgments based on the same issue, where the courts had held that assessments passed beyond the statutory deadline are considered invalid. However, the tax department argued that the assessment was valid and was based on merit.

[related id="402180"]

When the tribunal heard the arguments of both sides, it concluded that the company was right and hence ruled that since the assessments were given after the prescribed time, they were not valid and set aside both assessment orders for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19.

The ITAT set aside Luminous Power’s tax assessments for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 after finding the orders were issued beyond the statutory deadline under Section 144C(13).

ITAT Quashes Time-Barred Assessment Orders u/s 144C(13) of Income Tax Act, 1961; Favours Assessee

The Centre has re-appointed Ravi Agrawal as CBDT Chairman on a six-month contract from July 1 to December 31, 2026.

Government Re-Appoints Ravi Agrawal as CBDT Chairman for Six Months

The ITAT Mumbai deleted the Rs 7 lakh addition under Section 69A, holding that credible evidence and consistent explanations outweigh mere suspicion in unexplained cash cases.

ITAT Deletes Rs 7 Lakh Section 69A Addition, Says Suspicion Alone Cannot Replace Proof

The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging personal tax recovery under Section 179, holding that adequate protection had already been granted by directing authorities to first recover dues from the company.

Tax Recovery Must First Target Company: High Court Finds Existing Protection Sufficient and Dismisses Plea

The ITAT sets aside the CIT(A)'s order, holding that under Section 56(2)(x), stamp duty value on the date of allotment applies when part payment was made earlier.

ITAT Rules Stamp Duty Value to Be Considered at Allotment Date under Section 56(2)(x)

The ITAT remanded the case of the Section 80GGC exemption claim, holding that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal merely on the grounds of limitation, and the case was not heard on its merits.

ITAT Remands Section 80GGC Donation Case for Fresh Hearing Due to Non-Consideration of Case on Its Merits

From ITR filing to passport fees and banking rules, here are the key financial changes taking effect from July 1, 2026.

Financial Changes From July 1, 2026: What You Need to Know

The ITAT held that a mere mismatch in a trade creditor's closing balance cannot justify an addition under Section 68 when the purchases, sales, and closing stock have already been accepted by the AO.

Mere Difference in Trade Creditor Closing Balance Cannot Justify Section 68 Addition When Purchases Are Accepted, Rules ITAT

The ITAT has upheld the disallowance of delayed employees' PF/ESI contributions under Section 143(1), ruling that CPC can make such adjustments while processing income tax returns.

Delayed PF/ESI Deposits Can Be Disallowed During ITR Processing, Holds ITAT

The ITAT Delhi remands Section 11 exemption case after the tax authorities fails to prove that educational institute engaged in trade or commercial activities.