TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 1012
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... illegal and non maintainable since the same has to be passed u/s 153C and not u/s 143(3) of the Act." 2. Since the issue raised in the above additional ground is legal in nature and goes to the root to the matter, we preferred to adjudicate upon it first. 3. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon. 4. The facts in briefs are that the assessee, an individual is doing the business of import and export, prior to the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2009-10. The assessee had been filing its return of income with Ward 25(3) under the resident status but for the first time he filed his return of income under the status of "Non Resident Indian"(NRI). A search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Koutones Group on 19/02/2009. It has been alleged that documents belonging to assessee were found in the said search. As a result, the assessments of the assessee were centralized by the ld. CIT(A)-X on 16/06/2009 and jurisdiction of the assessee was transferred from Ward 25(3) to ACIT, Central Circle XI, which is the present AO. The AO completed the assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as on the date of search hence there was no question of abatement of proceedings. 8. The ld. AR submitted further that while interpreting the provisions laid down u/s 153A and 153C the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DSL Properties (supra) has held that harmonious interpretation should be given to the provisions of clause (b) and proviso to section 153C of the Act. He submitted that by virtue of first proviso, embedded with section 153C, the date of handing over the documents would become the date of search in the case of other person and previous six years period would have to be reckoned from this date which means the relevant assessment year of search in the case of assessee would be 16/06/2009 which falls under A.Y. 2010-11 and not A.Y. 2009-10 and six previous years would be 2009-10 to 2003-04. 9. The ld. AR submitted that as per the sub-rule 5 of Rule 6F IT Rules, 1962, every assessee under the Income tax has to maintain the account of six previous years for the purpose of Income tax. Now supposing a search is conducted in one year and documents of the other person are handed over to the AO of other person or to the AO with whom jurisdiction is centralized, after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ismissed. 11. Ld. CIT(DR) on the other hand, submitted that reference of proviso 1 to section 153C is only in relation to second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A which speaks about the abatement of the pending proceedings of six assessment years and not regarding the assessment of the preceding six assessment years which will be the same as in section 153A as well as in section 153C of the Act. In support she placed reliance on the judgment dated 29/03/2012 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of SSP Aviation Ltd. vs. DCIT, W.P.C. No. 309/2011. She submitted further that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of V.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 5460 to 5465/Del/2012 dated 27/11/2013 has followed its decision dated 22/03/2013 in the case of DSL Properties P. Ltd. ITA No. 11349/D/2012 and the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of SSP Aviation Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) pronounced on 29/03/2012, should have been followed. She further submitted that the appeal preferred by the Revenue in the case of DSL Properties P. Ltd. (supra) has been admitted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 12. The ld. AR rejoined with the submission that while admitting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act. In this regard she placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of SSP Aviation Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra). 15. We find that an identical issue has been decided by Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DSL Properties P. Ltd. (supra) in favour of the assessee accepting the similar contention of the assessee. Similar view has been expressed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of V.K. Fiscal (supra) holding that the date of receiving of the seized documents would become the date of search and six years period would be reckoned from this date. For a ready reference para no. 19, 21, 22 & 23 of the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DSL Properties (supra) are being reproduced hereunder: 19. "We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Proviso to section 153C reads as under: "Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search u/s 132 or making of requisition u/s 132A in the second proviso to [sub-section (1) of] section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the AO having....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have already held that for initiating valid jurisdiction u/s 153C, even if the AO of the person searched and t he AO of such other person is the same, he has to first record the satisfaction in the file of the person searched and thereafter, such note alongwith the seized document/books of account is to be placed in the file of such other person. The date on which this exercise is done would be considered as the date of receiving the books of account or document by the AO having jurisdiction over such other person. Though while examining the facts of the assessee's case we have arrived at the conclusion that no such exercise has been properly carried out and, therefore, initiation of proceedings u/s 153C itself is invalid, however, since both the parties have argued the issue of period of limitation also, we deem it proper to adjudicate the same. Since in this case satisfaction is recorded on 21st June, 2010 and notice u/s 153C is also issued on the same date, then only conclusion that can be drawn is that the AO of such other person has taken over the possession of seized document on 21st June, 2010. Accordingly, as per section 153(1), the AO can issue the notice for the previous ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n over the other person. Thereafter, the AO having jurisdiction over the other person has to proceed against him and issue notice to that per5son in order to assess or reassess the income of such other person in the manner contemplated by the provisions of section 153A. Now a question may arise as to the applicability of the second proviso to section 153A in the case of the other person, in order to examine the question of pending proceedings which have to abate. In the case of the searched person, the date with reference to which the proceedings for assessment or reassessment of any assessment year within the period of the six assessment years shall abate, is the date of initiation of the search u/s 132 or the requisition u/s 132A. For instance, in the present case, with reference to the Puri Group of Companies, such date will be 5.1.2009. However, in the case of the other person, which in the present case is the petitioner herein, such date will be the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisition by the AO having jurisdiction over such other person. In the case of the other person, the question of pendency and abatement of the proceedings of....