TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1519
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d completed the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 153C of I.T. Act,1961. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the order of A.O. wherein he added Rs. 17,00,000/- being loan taken from M/S Divyasagar Restaurant (Prop: Mrs. Meera D. Shetty) into appellant's total income as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961. Under the facts and circumstances of the matter he ought not to have upheld the said addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- into the total income of appellant. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the order of A.O. wherein he added Rs. 2,57,350/- being cash deposited in PMC Bank into appellant's total income as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of I.T. Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the matter he ought not to have added the said amount of cash deposits in PMC Bank into appellant's total income. 4. The appellant craves, leave to add, amend or alter the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing." That still further the assessee had raised the following 'additional grounds of appeal'. Additional Ground No. 1: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n record the material called for by the A.O. The assessee throughout the assessment proceedings furnished partial, sketchy and incomplete details in 'Tapal' through his counsel and avoided putting up an appearance before the A.O. That due to the non- cooperative attitude of the assessee and absence of the requisite replies, the A.O proceeded with and framed assessment under Section 144 r.w.s 153C of the 'Act' on 30.12.2011 at an income of Rs. 59,52,330/-. 3. The assessee being aggrieved with the assessment carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). That before the CIT(A) the assessee assailed the assessment framed by the A.O on multiple grounds, viz. he was not afforded sufficient opportunity for presenting his case during the course of the assessment proceedings; the return of income filed by him under Section 153C was not considered by the A.O while framing the assessment; alleged absence of satisfaction on the part of the A.O for taking action under Section 153C, as well as assailed on merits the addition aggregating to Rs. 53,00,592/- so made by the A.O on merits. The CIT(A) after deliberating on the contentions of the assessee, therein observing that the assessee had r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sdiction and framed assessment under Section 144 r.w.s. 153C in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2004-05. That during the course of hearing of the appeal it was vehemently submitted by the ld. A.R for the assessee that as per the mandate of the 2nd proviso of Section 153A r.w. the 1st proviso of Section 153C, the six assessment years for which assessment/reassessment could be made, had to be construed with reference to the date of handing over of the assets/documents relatable to the assessee by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, to the Assessing Officer of the assessee. The ld. A.R thus submitted that though the search and seizure action under Section 132(1) was conducted in the case of Gangadhar Shetty group on 20.08.2009, however the reasons for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C were recorded in the case of the assessee for A.Ys 2004-05 to 2009-10 by the ACIT, Central Circle-34, Mumbai, on 21.12.2010. The ld. A.R in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts therein submitted that though in the reasons recorded there was no clear mention of the date of actual handing over of the seized 'material' relatable to the assessee by the A.O of the searched person, viz. M/s O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment in the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2004-05 had traversed beyond the scope of his jurisdiction, therein relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT-7 Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2015) 62 taxmann.com 391 (Delhi). Still further, the assessee fortified his aforesaid contention by drawing support from the orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the following cases:- (i) Rajeev Behl Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi (ITA 1927-1931/Del/2015), dated 29.06.2016 (ITAT- Delhi bench 'F', New Delhi) (ii) DSL Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, (2013) 33 taxmann.com 420 (Delhi - Trib). (iii) M/s. R.L. Allied Industries Vs. ITO, New Delhi (ITA 567/568/Del/2011, dated 28.11.2014)(Delhi-Trib). Per contra, it was submitted by the ld. D.R that the six assessment years for which the assessment/re-assessment proceedings could be initiated in the hands of the assessee were regulated by the 2nd proviso of Section 153A(1), and as the search and seizure action under Section 132(1) of the 'Act' was conducted in the case of Gangadhar Shetty Group on 20.08.2009, viz. the period relevant to A.Y 2010-11, therefore the A.O had v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the A.O. having jurisdiction to assess the said Assessee. Further proceedings, by virtue of Section 153C(1) of the Act would have to be in accordance with Section 153A of the Act and the reference to the date of search would have to be construed as the reference to the date of recording of satisfaction. It would follow that the six assessment /reassessments could be made under Section l53C of the Act would also have to be construed with reference to the date of handing over of assets/documents to the A.O. of the assessee. In this case, it would be the date of the recording of satisfaction under Section 153C of the Act, i.e., 8th September, 2010. In this view, the assessment made in respect of assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 would be beyond the period of six assessment years as reckoned with reference to the date of recording of satisfaction by the A.O. of the searched person. It is contended by Revenue that the relevant six assessment years would be the assessment years prior to the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. If this interpretation as canvassed by the Revenue is accepted, it would mean that whereas in case of a person se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... jurisdiction to make assessment of the assessee's income for that year. Accordingly, assesse's appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 is allowed." That a similar view had been arrived at by the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the case of DSL Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT Central Circle-8, (2013) 33 taxmann.com 420 (Delhi-Trib) and in the case of M/s R.L. Allied Industries Delhi Vs. ITO, Ward 20(1) New Delhi (ITA 567/568/Del/2011)(Delhi- Trib),dated 28.11.2014. 6. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and in backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law are of the considered view that though in the case of an assessee where search and seizure action is initiated under Section 132, or books of accounts, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer gets vested with the jurisdiction to assess or re-assess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search proceedings were initiated under Section 132, or requisition is made under Section 132A, as the case may be. We however find that in the case of a p....