TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessment for AY 2012-13 could be sustained under section 153C when the date of recording of satisfaction and receipt of seized material was treated as the deemed date of search. (ii) Whether the assessments for the later years, being unabated assessments, could survive in the absence of incriminating material relating to the assessee.
Issue (i): Whether the assessment for AY 2012-13 could be sustained under section 153C when the date of recording of satisfaction and receipt of seized material was treated as the deemed date of search.
Analysis: The starting point for computing the block period in a case under section 153C is the date on which the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the other person receives the seized material and records satisfaction. That date, and not the date of search in the case of the searched person, governs the statutory block for the other person. On that basis, AY 2012-13 fell outside the relevant block and the assessment framed under section 153C could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The assessment for AY 2012-13 was invalid and was quashed in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessments for the later years, being unabated assessments, could survive in the absence of incriminating material relating to the assessee.
Analysis: For completed or unabated assessments, additions under section 153C cannot be made unless incriminating material is found during the search and is connected with the assessee. The record did not disclose any such material against the assessee, and the impugned additions were founded only on protective assumptions and not on seized evidence. In that situation, the assessments were without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
Conclusion: The assessments for AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18 were quashed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The common order set aside the section 153C assessments and all connected additions, leaving no surviving demand against the assessee for the years in appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under section 153C, the relevant block period for the other person is reckoned from the date the jurisdictional Assessing Officer receives the seized material and records satisfaction, and completed assessments cannot be disturbed unless incriminating material relating to the assessee is found in the search.
TaxTMI 
