Assessment under Section 153C time-barred when beyond six-year limitation period from search year

The ITAT Delhi held that an assessment order passed under section 153C read with section 143(3) for assessment year 2012-13 was barred by limitation. The AO assumed jurisdiction on 29.06.2021 when incriminating material was handed over, making 2021-22 the year of search. Under section 153C(1), assessments can only be opened for six assessment years immediately preceding the relevant assessment year, or ten years under the Finance Act 2017 amendment. Since AY 2012-13 fell beyond both the six-year and ten-year periods, the assessment was time-barred. The tribunal followed the coordinate bench decision in MG Fincap and Delhi HC ruling in Pr. CIT vs. Ojjus Medicare, deciding in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Presented and Considered

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

1. Whether the assessment order passed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for assessment year (AY) 2012-13 is valid or barred by limitation.

2. The correct computation of the limitation period for reopening assessments under section 153C of the Act, particularly the applicability of the six-year and ten-year periods in the context of a search conducted under section 132 and the handing over of seized material to the Assessing Officer (AO) of the non-searched person.

3. The legal effect of the proviso to section 153C(1) of the Act, which stipulates the deemed date of search for a person other than the searched person as the date of receipt of seized material by the AO of such other person.

4. Whether the assessment year 2012-13 falls within the permissible period of six or ten years for reopening the assessment under section 153C, given the date of handing over of documents to the AO of the assessee was 29.06.2021.

5. The applicability and interpretation of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., which clarified the method of computing the limitation period under section 153C of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Validity of Assessment Order under Section 153C vis-`a-vis Limitation Period

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153C of the Act empowers the AO of a person other than the searched person to make an assessment based on books of account or documents seized during a search conducted on another person, subject to limitation periods. The proviso to section 153C(1) clarifies that for such other person, the date of search is deemed to be the date on which the AO of the searched person hands over the seized material to the AO of the other person.

The Finance Act, 2017 introduced an extended limitation period of ten years in certain cases. Explanation 1 to section 153A prescribes that the ten-year period is to be reckoned from the end of the AY relevant to the financial year in which the search was conducted or requisition made.

Key precedents relied upon include:

• Pr. CIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Delhi High Court) - elucidated the computation of six-year and ten-year limitation periods under section 153C.
• CIT vs. Jagjit Singh (Supreme Court) - on limitation principles.
• MG Fincap P Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) - applied Ojjus Medicare principles in a similar fact scenario.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the AO of the searched person (Prahlad Kumar Agrawal) recorded satisfaction and handed over the seized material to the AO of the assessee on 29.06.2021. Therefore, the deemed date of search for the assessee is 29.06.2021, corresponding to AY 2022-23.

Accordingly, the six-year limitation period under section 153C would cover AYs immediately preceding AY 2022-23, i.e., AY 2016-17 to AY 2021-22. The impugned assessment year 2012-13 falls well outside this six-year block and is thus barred by limitation.

Regarding the extended ten-year period introduced by the Finance Act, 2017, the Tribunal relied on the Ojjus Medicare judgment which clarified that the ten-year period is to be reckoned from the end of the AY relevant to the year of search (31 March 2023 in this case). Counting backward ten years from AY 2022-23 end date includes AY 2013-14 to AY 2022-23. The impugned AY 2012-13 again falls outside this ten-year block, rendering the reopening barred by limitation.

Key Evidence and Findings: The undisputed facts were:

• Search under section 132 conducted on 02.11.2017 in Rakesh Jain Group and Prahlad Kumar Agrawal.
• Seized documents pertaining to the assessee found during assessment proceedings of Prahlad Kumar Agrawal.
• AO of searched person handed over seized material to AO of assessee on 29.06.2021.
• Assessment for AY 2012-13 completed under section 153C on 27.12.2022.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the proviso to section 153C(1) to hold that the date of search for the assessee is 29.06.2021. The six-year limitation period therefore covers AY 2016-17 onwards, excluding AY 2012-13. Similarly, the ten-year period also excludes AY 2012-13. Hence, the assessment for AY 2012-13 is barred by limitation.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department contended that the assessment was valid and within limitation. However, the Tribunal found the Department's submissions unpersuasive in light of the statutory proviso and binding judicial precedents, particularly the Ojjus Medicare decision. The assessee's argument that limitation must be computed from the date of handing over of seized material was accepted.

Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 27.12.2022 for AY 2012-13 under section 153C is barred by limitation and hence invalid.

2. Interpretation of Proviso to Section 153C(1) and Calculation of Limitation Periods

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The proviso to section 153C(1) states that for a non-searched person, the date of search shall be construed as the date of receipt of seized material by the AO of that person, not the date of the original search under section 132. Explanation 1 to section 153A prescribes the manner of computing the ten-year limitation period.

The Delhi High Court in Ojjus Medicare clarified the distinction between the six-year and ten-year periods:

• The six-year period is reckoned backward from the AY relevant to the previous year in which the seized material was handed over (deemed search date).
• The ten-year period is reckoned backward from the end of the AY relevant to the financial year in which the search was conducted or requisition made.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal reproduced the detailed computation tables from the Ojjus Medicare judgment, emphasizing that the six-year block for the assessee starts from AY 2022-23 (year of deemed search) and goes back to AY 2016-17. The ten-year block starts from 31 March 2023 (end of AY 2022-23) and goes back to AY 2013-14.

This distinction is crucial because it means the limitation period for reopening assessments under section 153C depends on the date the AO of the non-searched person receives the seized material, not the original search date.

Key Evidence and Findings: The seized material was handed over on 29.06.2021, during FY 2021-22, making AY 2022-23 the relevant AY for limitation computation for the assessee.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the proviso and Explanation 1 to section 153C and 153A to hold that the limitation period for the assessee must be computed from the date of handing over of seized material, not from the original search date in 2017.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department's argument that the original search date governs limitation was rejected as inconsistent with the statutory proviso and judicial interpretation.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the limitation period for the assessee's assessment under section 153C is governed by the date of handing over of seized material (29.06.2021), and hence the assessment for AY 2012-13 is barred by limitation.

3. Merits of Additions Made in Assessment

The Tribunal noted that since the assessee succeeded on the jurisdictional limitation issue, the grounds challenging additions on merits became academic and were not adjudicated.

Significant Holdings

"A bare perusal of aforesaid proviso would make it unambiguously clear that the AO of the assessee assumed jurisdiction on the date when the AO of the searched person handed over books of account or documents or assets seized ... In the present case, the said date is undisputedly 29.06.2021. Thus, in the case of assessee the year of search would be 2021-22 relevant to AY 2022-23."

"The six AYs' are envisaged to be those which immediately precede the AY so identified with reference to the previous year of search. It would thus lead us to conclude that it would be the six AYs' immediately preceding AY 2022-23 which could have formed the basis for initiation of action under Section 153C."

"While the identification and computation of the six AYs' hinges upon the phrase 'immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year' of search, the ten year period would have to be reckoned from the 31st day of March of the AY relevant to the year of search."

"The assessment order dated 27.12.2022 is held to be beyond limitation, hence, quashed."

Core Principles Established:

• The deemed date of search for a non-searched person under section 153C is the date on which the AO of the searched person hands over the seized material to the AO of the non-searched person.
• The six-year limitation period for reopening assessments under section 153C is computed backward from the AY relevant to the previous year in which the seized material was handed over (deemed search date).
• The ten-year extended limitation period under Explanation 1 to section 153A is computed backward from the end of the AY relevant to the financial year in which the original search was conducted.
• Assessments made beyond these limitation periods are invalid and liable to be quashed.

Final Determinations on Each Issue:

1. The assessment order for AY 2012-13 under section 153C is barred by limitation as it falls outside both the six-year and ten-year periods computed as per the statutory provisions and judicial precedents.

2. The AO's jurisdiction under section 153C is triggered on the date of handing over of seized material to the AO of the non-searched person, not the original search date.

3. The assessment order dated 27.12.2022 is quashed on the ground of limitation.

4. Since the assessment is quashed on jurisdictional grounds, the merits of the additions made are not adjudicated.

---