TRAVELPORT GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM BV,NETHERLAND V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

ITA 1628/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Travelport Global Distribution System BV, a company engaged in the business of Travelport Commerce Platform, which received substantial business income from its Permanent Establishment (PE) in India during the Assessment Year 2016-17. The company filed a NIL return of income, leading the Income Tax Department to issue a notice under Section 148 for reassessment, claiming the income had escaped assessment. The company contested the notice, arguing it was barred by limitation based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, which was supported by various High Court decisions. The Income Tax Department defended the validity of the notice, asserting it was within the limitation period. The tribunal, after considering the legal precedents and the timeline of events, ruled in favor of the assessee, Travelport, quashing the reassessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781251 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal, Ram Balram Build Home (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, ADM Agro Industries Latur and Vizag (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAROJ KUMAR DUBEY
• Assessee Lawyers: S.K. AGARWAL; VIBHA BANSAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Reassessment proceedings; Period of limitation
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 1628/Del/2024 Travelport Global Distribution System BV Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1628/Del/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) Travelport Global Distribution System BV, Taurusavenue 33A-2132 LS, PO Box 3064- 2130KB, Hoofddrop, the Netherlands, Netherland PAN: AACCG2258D Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation 1(3)(1) Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. S. K. Agarwal, Adv, Sh. Vibha Bansal, CA & Sh. Arihant Jain, CA Revenue by Sh. Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the Final Assessment Order dated 12/03/2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.Section144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee is in the business ofTravelport Commerce Platform (TCP) in territories outside the America and Canada (including India region) during the year under consideration. The Assessee company received an amount of Rs. 413,94,76,067/- from Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1628/Del/2024 Travelport Global Distribution System BV Vs. ACIT India during the year under consideration. The receipts are business income of Assessee’s PE in India which have not been offered to tax instead assesse has filed a NIL return of income, therefore, as per the Revenue, an amount of Rs. 413,94,76,067/- was chargeable to tax in the hands of the Assessee in India, has escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 2016-17. A Final assessment order came to be passed on 12/03/2024 u/s 147 r.w. Section 44C (13) of the Act which is under challenge by the Assessee. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the issue on merits in the present case is covered in favour of the Assessee for 20 years right from Assessment Year 1995-96 to 2020-21. Apart from the same, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is beyond the period of limitation as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in TS-399-SC 2022, therefore, sought for allowing the Ground No. 2. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Ground No. 2 of the Assessee regarding the contention that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation is devoid of merit. Further submitted that, issuing of the notice and the initiation of the assessment Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1628/Del/2024 Travelport Global Distribution System BV Vs. ACIT proceedings are well within the limitation, thus relying on the order of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is the case of the Ld. Assessee's Representative that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 29/07/2022 is barred by limitation. As per the time limit prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and ors vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in TS-399-SC- 2022 and CBDT’s Instruction No. 1/2022. The Ld. Counsel has also relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ram Balram Build Home (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [2025] 171 taxmann.com 99 (Delhi) and ADM Agro Industries Latur and Vizag (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 725 (Delhi). The relevant portion of the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ADM Agro Industries (supra) which reads as under:- “4. In compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India &Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra), the Assessing Officer [AO] provided information and material to the Assessee on 25.05.2022. The Assessee was granted two weeks’ time to respond to the said notice. The Assessee responded to the notice dated 25.05.2022 by a letter dated 09.06.2022. 5. The AO passed an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act on 19.07.2022. According to the Assessee, the same was beyond the period as stipulated for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. 6. In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the assessment year for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act expired on 31.03.2020. Thus, in terms of Section 149 of the Act, a notice under Section Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 1628/Del/2024 Travelport Global Distribution System BV Vs. ACIT 148 of the Act could not be issued. However, the said period was extended by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [TOLA]. Consequently, the time limit for issuing such a notice was extended to 30.06.2021. The original notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.06.2021, which was the last date of expiry of the period of limitation. 7. As noted above, the said notice was deemed to be a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India &Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra). The Supreme Court also granted further time to provide the material, which was required to accompany such notice. As explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, the period from the date of the issuance of the notice till 04.05.2022, the date on which the Supreme Court had rendered the decision in Union of India &Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra), is required to be excluded. Additionally, the time provided till the date of providing the material, which should have accompanied a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, as well as the time available to the assessee to respond to the said notice is also required to be excluded by virtue of the Fourth Proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, as applicable at the material time. 8. In the present case, the time period for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act expired on 16.06.2022. However, the impugned notice was issued on 20.07.2022, which is beyond the said period. Thus, the notice was beyond the period of limitation. 9. This court in Ram BalramBuildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:547-DB observed as under: - “53. As is apparent from the plain language of the fourth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, it extends the period of limitation for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act so as to provide the AO a minimum of seven days to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. If the time available to the AO to decide whether it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act in terms of Section 148A(d) of the Act is less than seven days after excluding the period as provided under the third proviso, then the period of three years or ten years as prescribed is required to be extended by such period so as to make available to the AO at least seven days to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. Illustratively, if the show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act is issued to an assessee, on the last date on which issuance of such a notice under Section 148 of the Act is permissible, that is, on the last day of expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year or ten years from the end of the assessment year as the case may be, the time made available to Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 1628/Del/2024 Travelport Global Distribution System BV Vs. ACIT the assessee to respond to a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act (being a minimum of seven days but not exceeding thirty days as provided in the notice plus such further time as extended pursuant to an application), is required to be excluded for the calculation of the period of three years or ten years as the case may be. And, an additional period of seven days is made available for the AO to pass an order. Thus, the period of limitation in such case would be three years (after excluding the time provided to the assessee to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act) and seven days, or a period of ten years (after excluding the time provided to the assessee to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act) and seven days as the case may be. 54. It is obvious, that in such a case, the AO would not have a time for passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act as stipulated under the said Clause, that is, one month from the end of the month in which the assessee furnishes a reply to the notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. As noted above, the AO is required to complete the entire procedure for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act within the period as prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. Plainly, if the AO is unable to complete such procedure within the period of limitation, the AO would cease to have the jurisdiction to issue such a notice. *** *** *** 65. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the last date for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2013-14 under the statutory framework, as was existing prior to 01.04.2021 was 31.03.2020, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 66. By virtue of Section 3(1) of TOLA time for completion of specified acts, which fell during the period 20.03.2020 to 31.12.2020 were extended till 30.06.20218. Thus, the notice dated 01.06.2021 was issued twenty-nine days prior to the expiry of period of limitation for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act as was extended by TOLA. As noted above, the period from 01.06.2021, the date of issuance of notice, and 04.05.2022, being the date of decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India &Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal is required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. 67. Additionally, the period from the date of decision in Union of India &Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal till the date of providing material, as required to the accompanied with a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, is required to be excluded. Thus, the period between 04.05.2022 to 30.05.2022, the date on which the AO had issued the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in furtherance of his earlier notice dated 01.06.2021, is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 1628/Del/2024 Travelport Global Distribution System BV Vs. ACIT to Section 149(1) of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India &Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal. 68. In addition to the above, the time granted to the petitioner to respond to the notice dated 30.05.2022 – the period of two weeks – is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. The petitioner had furnished its response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 13.06.2022. Thus, the period of limitation began running from that date. 69. As noted above, by virtue of TOLA, the AO had period of twenty-nine days limitation left on the date of commencement of the reassessment proceedings, which began on 01.06.2021, to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within the said twenty- nine days notwithstanding the time stipulated under Section 148A(d) of the Act. This period expired on 12.07.2022. 70. Since the period of limitation, as provided under Section 149(1) of the Act, had expired prior to issuance of the impugned notice on 30.07.2022. The said is squarely beyond the period of limitation.” 10. Concededly, the said controversy is covered in favour of the Assessee by the decision of this court in Ram BalramBuildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Another (supra). 11. The present petition is, accordingly, allowed and all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are set aside. The pending application is also disposed of.” 6. In the present case, the Ld. Counsel submitted the table computing the period of limitation as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), which has been followed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ram Balram Build Home (P.) Ltd. (Supra) and ADM Agro Industries Lature and Vizag (P.) Ltd. (supra), which is reproduced as under:- Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 1628/Del/2024 Travelport Global Distribution System BV Vs. ACIT S. No. Particulars Date Phase 1 Time Limit for issuance of notice under Section 148 of Old regime for AY 2016-17 i.e. 4 years from end of relevant AY's 31st March 2021 2 By virtue of TOLA', time limit extended till 30th June 2021 (for completion of any action which ought to be done between 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021). 3 Pursuant to TOLA, Ld. AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2016-17 under Old Regime. 30th June 2021 4 Notice dated 30th June 2021 issued u/s 148 of the Act under Old Regime got quashed by decision of High Court of Delhi in case of Appellant (W.P.(C) 8198/2021) vide order dated 15th December 2021. High Court stated that aforesaid notice was issued without following the procedure as prescribed under Section 148A of the Act under New Regime and hence, re-assessment proceedings cannot be initiated. - 5 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal [TS-339-SC-2022] vide order dated 04 May 2022, held that all notices issued under section 148 of the Old Regime during the TOLA period should be considered as valid and were deemed to be issued under section 148A(b) of the Act under New Regime. 6 Pursuant to Ashish Agarwal decision (supra), Ld. AO issued fresh notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act under New Regime. 02nd June 2022 7 Response filed as required under Section 148A(c) of the Act. Also, submitted litigation history on this issue along with appellate orders. Reply dated 16th June, 2022 8 Order u/s 148A(d) of the Act under New Regime passed alleging escapement of income. 28th July 2022 Notice u/s 148 of the Act under New Regime issued to Appellant requiring it to file ITR within a period of 30 days. 29th July 2022 7. As per the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the notice u/s 148 of the Act was required to be issued on or before 23 June 2022. Therefore, the notice dated 29th July, 2022 is barred by limitation specified u/s 149 of the Act, consequently, the re-assessment proceedings initiated thereupon is hereby quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 1628/Del/2024 Travelport Global Distribution System BV Vs. ACIT 8. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th October, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 24.10.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "