Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessment for the search-related year of a non-searched person could be framed under section 143(3) instead of section 153C read with section 153A, and whether the assessment order was void for want of jurisdiction.
Analysis: The Revenue's challenge turned on the applicability of the first proviso to section 153C and the settled position that, in the case of a non-searched person, the relevant starting point for computing the block period is the date on which seized material is received by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, not the date of search in the case of the searched person. Binding judicial precedent had already authoritatively settled this legal position, and the facts of the present case were found to be materially identical. In that view, the assessment ought to have been framed under section 153C read with section 153A, and the invocation of section 143(3) was held to suffer from a fatal jurisdictional defect.
Conclusion: The assessment framed under section 143(3) was held to be without jurisdiction and was not sustained; the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The order of the first appellate authority was upheld on the jurisdictional issue, resulting in the annulment of the assessment and no surviving relief in the assessee's cross-objection.
Ratio Decidendi: For a non-searched person, the six-year block under section 153C is reckoned from the date the seized material is received by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and an assessment made under section 143(3) in such a case is void for want of jurisdiction.