AO erred framing assessment under s.143(3); six-year period under s.153C runs from satisfaction note date, not search date

ITAT DELHI held the AO erred in framing assessment under s.143(3) for AY 2014-15; the six-year period under s.153C must be reckoned from the date the satisfaction note was recorded (18.01.2016), not the search date (15.02.2014). Consequently AYs 2010-11 to 2015-16 fall within the six-year window and the impugned order under s.143(3) is quashed; assessment should have been made under s.153C. The tribunal also rejected the department's plea on retrospective application of the 2017 amendment, and allowed the assessee's appeal.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether an assessment framed under section 143(3) can be sustained where the seized material belongs to a person other than the searched person and the Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction under section 153C after the search?

2. What is the relevant date for computing the six-year block period under section 153C - the date of search or the date of recording of satisfaction/assumption of possession by the Assessing Officer of the person other than the searched person?

3. Whether the amendment to sub-section (1) of section 153C made effective from 01.04.2017 (altering the temporal scope of the six-year block) applies retrospectively to searches conducted prior to that date?

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Validity of assessment framed under section 143(3) instead of section 153C where seized material belongs to person other than searched person

Legal framework: Section 153C empowers the Assessing Officer of a person other than the one searched to make assessment on income found during search of another person, with consequential application of block assessment provisions (section 153A read with relevant provisos) for specified assessment years. Section 143(3) is the ordinary assessment provision.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on authoritative judicial interpretation that the obligations and time-limits under section 153C are triggered as per the date on which the Assessing Officer of the non-searched person assumes possession/records satisfaction; in that context, the special procedure under section 153C displaces ordinary assessment under section 143(3) for the block years.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court construed the statutory scheme to require assessments falling within the block period envisaged by section 153C to be completed under the special procedure (i.e., under section 153C read with section 153A where applicable). Because the seized material in the instant matter belonged to a person other than the searched person and the Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction and assumed possession for purposes of section 153C, framing the assessment under section 143(3) was inconsistent with the statutory mandate for search-linked assessments.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where seized material of a non-searched person is taken over pursuant to search of another, and the Assessing Officer records satisfaction and assumes possession, assessment for relevant block years must be made under section 153C (and related block assessment provisions), not under section 143(3). Obiter - ancillary observations on procedural steps taken in the particular file.

Conclusion: The assessment framed under section 143(3) for the year within the six-year block was erroneous and liable to be quashed; the appropriate course is assessment under section 153C for the relevant block years.

Issue 2 - Relevant date for reckoning the six-year block under section 153C: date of search vs date of recording of satisfaction/assumption of possession

Legal framework: The proviso to section 153C ties the block period for assessment to "the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made" as interpreted in light of the mechanics whereby seized material of a non-searched person is handed over to the Assessing Officer of that person; the timing of assumption of possession and recording of satisfaction by that AO affects the operation of the special assessment window.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal followed a decision of the High Court which held that the relevant date for application of section 153C (and section 153A where applicable) is the date on which the Assessing Officer of the person other than the one searched assumes possession of the seized assets or records satisfaction - not necessarily the date of the original search by the AO of the searched person.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that the statutory scheme contemplates transfer of seized material and a separate act of satisfaction/assumption by the AO of the non-searched person; until that act occurs the special assessment machinery cannot properly be said to have been engaged in respect of that non-searched person. Therefore the six-year block period is to be reckoned with reference to the date of recording satisfaction/assumption of possession by the assessing officer of the person whose material was seized.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the six-year period for block assessment under section 153C is to be computed with reference to the date of recording of satisfaction/assumption of possession by the Assessing Officer of the person other than the one searched (and not the date of search per se). Obiter - discussion of the practical implications for notice issuance timing.

Conclusion: The relevant date in the facts was the date of recording satisfaction (18.01.2016); accordingly, the six-year block extended from AY 2010-2011 to AY 2015-2016, making the impugned AY 2014-2015 fall within the block and necessitating assessment under section 153C rather than section 143(3).

Issue 3 - Applicability of amendment to section 153C (w.e.f. 01.04.2017) to searches conducted earlier

Legal framework: Finance Act amendment to sub-section (1) of section 153C, made effective from 01.04.2017, altered the wording relating to the six-year period. The question arises whether that amendment can be applied retrospectively to searches conducted before its effective date.

Precedent Treatment: The Court applied a decision of the High Court which held against retrospective application of the amendment to section 153C; that High Court decision was treated as determinative on the point in favour of the assessee's position.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the amendment's effective date (01.04.2017) prevents its retrospective application to searches conducted earlier and that judicial precedent has adjudicated that applying the amendment retrospectively would be impermissible. Given that the search in question occurred before the amendment, the pre-amendment temporal regime governs computation of the block period.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the amendment to sub-section (1) of section 153C effective 01.04.2017 does not apply retrospectively to searches carried out before that date; prior law governs the temporal scope of block assessments for such searches. Obiter - commentary on legislative intent and transitional issues.

Conclusion: The amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2017 could not be invoked by the Department to curtail the block period in respect of the search conducted on 15.02.2014; accordingly, the longer pre-amendment six-year block applied and the assessment for AY 2014-2015 fell within that block.

Cross-references and final disposition

The conclusions on Issues 1-3 are interrelated: because the relevant date for reckoning the block period is the date of recording satisfaction by the AO of the non-searched person (Issue 2), and because the post-2017 amendment cannot be applied retrospectively (Issue 3), the impugned assessment year fell within the pre-amendment six-year block and therefore had to be assessed under section 153C rather than section 143(3) (Issue 1). The appeal on the additional ground was sustained and the assessment under section 143(3) was quashed.

---