The DRP issued its directions years ago and the Assessing Officer has still not passed a final assessment order. Is the assessment now dead, or can he pass one whenever he likes?
It is dead. Section 144C(13) requires the Assessing Officer, on receipt of the DRP's directions under s.144C(5), to complete the assessment in conformity with them within one month from the end of the month in which the directions are received, and he need not give any further hearing. Where that month passed — here even after the extension of the outer date under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 — and no order was passed, the Bombay High Court held the assessment barred by limitation and quashed the pending proceedings on the assessee's writ petition.
Decided by the High Court (B.P. Colabawalla J and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla J) on 2026-04-21, reported as Writ Petition No. 10391 of 2022 (Bombay High Court), Assessment Year 2016-17. It bears on section 144C, section 144C(1), section 144C(5), section 144C(13), section 92CA, section 92CA(1), section 92CA(3), section 143(2), section 143(3), section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
This is the mirror image of the usual s.144C complaint. The taxpayer's problem is not that an order was passed wrongly but that no order was passed at all, and the file simply sits open, with the department free in practice to revive it years later. The decision confirms that the one-month period in s.144C(13) is a limitation and not a direction, and that when it expires the assessment cannot be completed. Two practical features are worth noting. First, the Court obtained written instructions from the department, verified against the ITBA system and the case records, that no order had been passed either electronically or manually — which is how the point was proved. Second, the relief was quashing of the pending assessment as time-barred, expressed by reference to the draft assessment order, so the whole proceeding went, not merely a notional order.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner manufactures automotive fasteners and connectors and is wholly owned by German group companies, with an Austrian ultimate holding company. It filed a nil return for AY 2016-17 on 27 November 2016. A notice under s.143(2) was issued on 1 August 2017 and the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer on 29 May 2018; the TPO issued notices under s.92CA(1) on 7 December 2018 and 5 April 2019 and passed an order under s.92CA(3) on 30 October 2019 adjusting the arm's length price by Rs 7,93,60,779. Without issuing a draft order under s.144C(1) the Assessing Officer passed a final assessment order on 27 November 2019 under s.143(3) assessing total income at Rs 7,93,60,779, against which the petitioner filed a protective appeal. A draft assessment order was then passed on 28 November 2019, the petitioner filed objections, and the Dispute Resolution Panel issued directions on 22 February 2021 under s.144C(5). No final assessment order followed. The petitioner wrote on 3 March 2021 asking for the order to be passed and on 25 April 2022 asking that the proceedings be set aside as time barred; there was no response, and the writ petition followed. On 6 April 2026 the Court asked whether any final order had been passed, and by email of 8 April 2026 the department placed written instructions on record confirming, after verification of the ITBA system and the case records, that no final order pursuant to the DRP's directions had been passed either on ITBA or manually.
The writ petition was allowed and the rule made absolute. Section 144C(13) requires the Assessing Officer to pass the final assessment order pursuant to DRP directions within one month from the end of the month in which the directions are received. With directions issued on 22 February 2021 the final order had to be passed by 31 March 2021, extended to 30 June 2021 by CBDT notifications under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020, and no order having been passed the assessment is barred by limitation. The Court granted the relief sought in prayer clause (a), quashing the impugned pending assessment initiated by the draft assessment order dated 28 November 2019 as time barred, and accepted the petitioner's undertaking to withdraw within two weeks the appeal it had filed against the order of 27 November 2019. No order as to costs (paragraphs 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14).
The Court proceeded on the admitted position, verified by the department's own written instructions, that no final assessment order existed. It read s.144C(13) as a mandatory time limit running from the end of the month of receipt of the DRP's directions, computed the outer date as 31 March 2021 and then as 30 June 2021 on the CBDT notifications, and concluded that with nothing passed by then the assessment was barred by limitation. It relied on its own earlier decision in Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, quoting the passage holding that sub-section (13) is very clear, that on receipt of the directions under sub-section (5) the Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment in conformity with them within one month from the end of the month in which the direction is received, and that because sub-section (13) also permits completion without any further opportunity of being heard, the officer must straightaway complete the assessment and does not even have to hear the assessee.
The time limit to pass the final assessment order was on or before 31st March, 2021. Even in terms of notifications issued by the CBDT, the time allowed for passing the final order was extended up to 30.06.2021. However, as confirmed by the learned counsel for the Respondents, on written instructions, no order has been passed. Hence, the assessment is barred by limitation.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppIt is dead. Section 144C(13) requires the Assessing Officer, on receipt of the DRP's directions under s.144C(5), to complete the assessment in conformity with them within one month from the end of the month in which the directions are received, and he need not give any further hearing. Where that month passed — here even after the extension of the outer date under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 — and no order was passed, the Bombay High Court held the assessment barred by limitation and quashed the pending proceedings on the assessee's writ petition. This was decided by the High Court (B.P. Colabawalla J and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla J) and bears on section 144C, section 144C(1), section 144C(5), section 144C(13), section 92CA, section 92CA(1), section 92CA(3), section 143(2), section 143(3), section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Writ Petition No. 10391 of 2022 (Bombay High Court), Assessment Year 2016-17. This is the mirror image of the usual s.144C complaint. The taxpayer's problem is not that an order was passed wrongly but that no order was passed at all, and the file simply sits open, with the department free in practice to revive it years later. The decision confirms that the one-month period in s.144C(13) is a limitation and not a direction, and that when it expires the assessment cannot be completed. Two practical features are worth noting. First, the Court obtained written instructions from the department, verified against the ITBA system and the case records, that no order had been passed either electronically or manually — which is how the point was proved. Second, the relief was quashing of the pending assessment as time-barred, expressed by reference to the draft assessment order, so the whole proceeding went, not merely a notional order. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Date the DRP's directions under s.144C(5) precisely and identify the month in which they were received by the Assessing Officer; the one month runs from the end of that month.
The petitioner manufactures automotive fasteners and connectors and is wholly owned by German group companies, with an Austrian ultimate holding company. It filed a nil return for AY 2016-17 on 27 November 2016. A notice under s.143(2) was issued on 1 August 2017 and the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer on 29 May 2018; the TPO issued notices under s.92CA(1) on 7 December 2018 and 5 April 2019 and passed an order under s.92CA(3) on 30 October 2019 adjusting the arm's length price by Rs 7,93,60,779. Without issuing a draft order under s.144C(1) the Assessing Officer passed a final assessment order on 27 November 2019 under s.143(3) assessing total income at Rs 7,93,60,779, against which the petitioner filed a protective appeal. A draft assessment order was then passed on 28 November 2019, the petitioner filed objections, and the Dispute Resolution Panel issued directions on 22 February 2021 under s.144C(5). No final assessment order followed. The petitioner wrote on 3 March 2021 asking for the order to be passed and on 25 April 2022 asking that the proceedings be set aside as time barred; there was no response, and the writ petition followed. On 6 April 2026 the Court asked whether any final order had been passed, and by email of 8 April 2026 the department placed written instructions on record confirming, after verification of the ITBA system and the case records, that no final order pursuant to the DRP's directions had been passed either on ITBA or manually. The matter was decided on 2026-04-21 by the High Court (B.P. Colabawalla J and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petition was allowed and the rule made absolute. Section 144C(13) requires the Assessing Officer to pass the final assessment order pursuant to DRP directions within one month from the end of the month in which the directions are received. With directions issued on 22 February 2021 the final order had to be passed by 31 March 2021, extended to 30 June 2021 by CBDT notifications under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020, and no order having been passed the assessment is barred by limitation. The Court granted the relief sought in prayer clause (a), quashing the impugned pending assessment initiated by the draft assessment order dated 28 November 2019 as time barred, and accepted the petitioner's undertaking to withdraw within two weeks the appeal it had filed against the order of 27 November 2019. No order as to costs (paragraphs 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14).
The Court proceeded on the admitted position, verified by the department's own written instructions, that no final assessment order existed. It read s.144C(13) as a mandatory time limit running from the end of the month of receipt of the DRP's directions, computed the outer date as 31 March 2021 and then as 30 June 2021 on the CBDT notifications, and concluded that with nothing passed by then the assessment was barred by limitation. It relied on its own earlier decision in Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, quoting the passage holding that sub-section (13) is very clear, that on receipt of the directions under sub-section (5) the Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment in conformity with them within one month from the end of the month in which the direction is received, and that because sub-section (13) also permits completion without any further opportunity of being heard, the officer must straightaway complete the assessment and does not even have to hear the assessee. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The time limit to pass the final assessment order was on or before 31st March, 2021. Even in terms of notifications issued by the CBDT, the time allowed for passing the final order was extended up to 30.06.2021. However, as confirmed by the learned counsel for the Respondents, on written instructions, no order has been passed. Hence, the assessment is barred by limitation." The decision followed or applied Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, 2022-TIOL-431-HC-Mum-IT — followed and quoted.
It was decided by the High Court on 2026-04-21 and is reported as Writ Petition No. 10391 of 2022 (Bombay High Court), Assessment Year 2016-17. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 144C, section 144C(1), section 144C(5), section 144C(13), section 92CA, section 92CA(1), section 92CA(3), section 143(2), section 143(3), section 142(1), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The writ petition was allowed and the rule made absolute. Section 144C(13) requires the Assessing Officer to pass the final assessment order pursuant to DRP directions within one month from the end of the month in which the directions are received. With directions issued on 22 February 2021 the final order had to be passed by 31 March 2021, extended to 30 June 2021 by CBDT notifications under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020, and no order having been passed the assessment is barred by limitation. The Court granted the relief sought in prayer clause (a), quashing the impugned pending assessment initiated by the draft assessment order dated 28 November 2019 as time barred, and accepted the petitioner's undertaking to withdraw within two weeks the appeal it had filed against the order of 27 November 2019. No order as to costs (paragraphs 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14). It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 144C, section 144C(1), section 144C(5), section 144C(13), section 92CA, section 92CA(1), section 92CA(3), section 143(2), section 143(3), section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by B.P. Colabawalla J and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Check whether any of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 notifications extend the outer date for your year before asserting that time has run out. Write to the Assessing Officer, first asking that the order be passed and then, once the period has expired, asking that the proceedings be dropped as time barred — that correspondence, unanswered, was what founded the writ petition here. In the writ, ask the Court to require written instructions from the department confirming from the ITBA system and the manual records that no order exists; a bare assertion by the assessee will not do. If you have filed a protective appeal against an earlier purported final order, be ready to withdraw it — the Court accepted an undertaking to withdraw such an appeal within two weeks as part of the relief. Frame the prayer as quashing the pending assessment as time barred, identifying the draft assessment order by its ITBA number, which is the form the relief took here.
Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed — no search for later treatment was carried out and none is claimed. The judgment is very recent (21 April 2026), was passed by consent on the writ petition being disposed of finally at the admission stage, and rests on the Bombay High Court's own earlier decision in Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd. The library already holds Madras High Court authority on DRP-related limitation at slug cit-v-roca-bathroom-products-drp-limitation; the interaction between the two lines was not examined here. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
There is a date slip in the report: paragraph 9 opens by referring to 'the directions of the DRP vide order dated 20.02.2021' and then, three sentences later, records that the DRP issued its directions on 22.02.2021; paragraphs 5, 7 and 10 all use 22.02.2021, which is the date the reasoning turns on. The judgment also records an unusual sequence in paragraphs 4 and 5 — a final assessment order dated 27.11.2019 passed without any draft order, followed by a draft assessment order dated 28.11.2019 — and the assessee filed a protective appeal against the earlier order. The Court did not decide anything about that sequence; it decided the case purely on the s.144C(13) limitation. The name is spelt 'Benteler Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.' in the cause title and 'Bentler' in the body of paragraph 2 when describing the holding companies; the indiankanoon index carries it as 'Bunteler'. The judgment was retrieved twice and paragraphs 9 to 11 matched; the second retrieval carried a longer extract from Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd than the first. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petition was allowed and the rule made absolute. Section 144C(13) requires the Assessing Officer to pass the final assessment order pursuant to DRP directions within one month from the end of the month in which the directions are received. With directions issued on 22 February 2021 the final order had to be passed by 31 March 2021, extended to 30 June 2021 by CBDT notifications under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020, and no order having been passed the assessment is barred by limitation. The Court granted the relief sought in prayer clause (a), quashing the impugned pending assessment initiated by the draft assessment order dated 28 November 2019 as time barred, and accepted the petitioner's undertaking to withdraw within two weeks the appeal it had filed against the order of 27 November 2019. No order as to costs (paragraphs 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
We charge fees for our public utility work. Does that cost us charitable status under s.2(15)?
Is a notice under s.143(2) a jurisdictional precondition, or merely a procedural step the Assessing Officer can skip?
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
Has the Supreme Court settled whether the s.144C nine-month DRP process runs over and above the s.153 limitation?