Allowing the petition the Court held that from the provision of S. 144C(13), it is evident that the specified time-limit is one month from the end of the month in which directions are received. It is also clear that the time-limit should be computed from the date of receipt of directions issued under sub-S. (5) thereof. Directions of the DRP were forwarded to the AO, i.e., National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi by uploading the same on 17th June, 2022. Contention that the jurisdictional AO received the directions only on 17th March, 2023 hence limitation should be counted from that date is not sustainable. Internal arrangement by which the assessment proceedings relating to the assessee were purportedly transferred so as to ensure that the proceedings are not barred by limitation is not material for this purpose. Period of one month expired on 31st July, 2022, whereas the assessment order came to be issued on 25th March, 2023,hence, the assessment order was barred by limitation. Followed  Louis Dreyfus Company India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 338 CTR 149/   236 DTR 73  (Delhi) (HC)  (AY. 2018-19)