2020 (2) TMI 570

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed appeal with the delay of 22 days. Upon hearing both the parties and after perusal of the record, we deem it proper to condone the delay of 22 days. Hence the delay of 22 days are condoned. 3. First, we shall take up appeal in IT(SS)A 41/Kol/2019 of Revenue. 4. The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in holding the assessment framed u/s 153C is barred by limitation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case relevant to the issue on hand, that the assessee is a company derives income from business, profession and other sources. A search & seizure operation was conducted in the Maple Group of cases on 09.12.2015. In the course of search operation, it was found that the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssment Year relevant to the recording of satisfaction and issue of notice 2018-19 6 years prior to above for which notice u/s 153C could be issued for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2017-18 Notice actually issued by the AO for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 u/s 153C and AY 2016-17 u/s 143(3) In the case of RRJ Securities 380 ITR 612 (Delhi) following principles of law have been held - head notes - whether it is date on which Assessing Officer of assessee, i.e., person other than one searched, assumes possession of seized assets / documents, would be relevant date for applying provisions of section 153A - held, yes. The proviso to section 153C(1) expressly indicates that reference to the date of ini....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issue notice requiring the notice to furnish returns of income in respect of six assessment years relevant to the six previous years preceding the previous year in which the search is conducted. By virtue of second proviso to section 153A, the assessment / reassessment pending on the date of initiation of search abate. In the context of proceedings under section 153C of the Act, the reference to the date of initiation of the search in the second proviso to section 153A has to be construed as the date on which the Assessing Officer receives the documents or assets from the Assessing Officer of the searched person. (Para - 21) Therefore as per this decision of Delhi High Court date of initiation of search shall be the date ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Y 2017-18 2016-17 2016-17 2015-16 2015-16 2014-15 2014-15 2013-14 2013-14 2012-13 2012-13 2011-12 In view of the above, I am inclined to hold that the notice dated 30.05.2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 is barred by limitation. Therefore, the issue of notice condition laid down for valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act has not been fulfilled and the same is barred by limitation. In view of the above, notice issued u/s 153C of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11 stands quashed and consequently the assessment completed in pursuance of such notice is also quashed. Therefore ground no 1 raised by the assessee allowed." 7. Before us, the ld. DR submits that the CIT(A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earch under the second proviso to section 153A of the Act has to be construed as the date of handing over of assets/documents belonging to the assessee being a person other than searched person to the AO having jurisdiction to assess the said assessee. Therefore, as discussed above the AO recorded satisfaction on 29.05.2017 and determined the block period as 2010-11 to 2015-16 taking into consideration the date of search. In our opinion, as in terms of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd., the date of recording of satisfaction is to be construed as the AO having jurisdiction to assess the searched person u/s 153C of the Act. 11. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sarwar Age....