TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 2075
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mr. Bhavesh Jindal & Ms. Aakriti Jindal, 12A, Green Avenue, Vasant Kund, New Delhi in whose name search warrant of authorization was issued. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was centralized with Central Circle- 14, New Delhi vide order F.No. CIT-Kol-1/Cent./12-13/5922 Delhi dated 27.12.2012. Accordingly, the following satisfaction note was recorded :- "Satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C read with 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of M/s Champak Niketan Pvt. Ltd. (PAN-AABC0420G) The case of M/s Champak Niketan Pvt. Ltd. was centralized u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with the Assessing Officer, Central Circle- 22, New Delhi vide Order no.FN19/CIT, C-II/Cent./12-13/4050 dated 18/02/2013 passed by CIT (Central-II), Kolkata & subsequently to this circle by CIT-III, New Delhi vide no.1302 dated 16/09/2013. Action under section 132 of the Income Tax was taken in Jindal group of cases by Investigation Directorate, New Delhi on 14.11.2011 at its business & residential premises. During the course of search proceedings from different residential/business premises several documents were found and seized. While exa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued, subscribed and paid up share capital has also been raised by Rs. 1,03,45,000/- by issuing 10,34,500 of equity shares @ 10 per share to the fresh share holders and has also raised share premium reserve of Rs. 9,31,05,00/- from the fresh share holders." 4. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along with a questionnaire dated 03.01.2014 asking the assessee to justify the share capital of Rs. 10.34 crores raised during the year which includes share application money of Rs. 1.03 crores and share premium of Rs. 9.31 crores. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee and observing that the assessee failed to fulfill the criteria laid down in the provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act and further observing that the companies have invested in the shares of the assessee company are only paper companies which are not doing any business made addition of Rs. 10,34,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 5. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit challenged the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the I.T. Act. It was argued that initiation and completion of the assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for initiating action u/s 153C, was recorded, after receiving the documents on 03.12.2013 pertaining to the assessee. Since, A.O. of both the persons, was same and therefore, physical handing over of the documents was assumed by the A.O. on 03.12.2013. Accordingly, A.O. issued notice u/s 153C, on 03.12.2013. (iii) In the appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted that the documents pertaining to appellant, were handed over on 03.12.2013 and therefore, A.O. can take action u/s 153C in 6 preceding F.Ys. i.e. for A.Y. 2008-09 to A.Y. 2013-14 only. However, the A.O. has wrongly issued notices u/s 153C for A.Y. 2006-07 and A.Y. 2007-08, without jurisdiction. For the above submission, the appellant has also relied upon the decision of jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT -7 vs. M/s RRJ Securities Ltd., [2016] 380 ITR 612 (Delhi), where it has been held that the date of handing over of material, will be construed as the reference date for initiation of action u/s 153C, as against date of initiation of search construed the reference date for initiation of action u/s 153A. The relevant portion of decision has also been reproduced in the written sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction u/s 153C, instead of date of search on 14.11.2011. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that the first proviso to section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 envisages the six assessment years for the purpose of assessment u/s 153C be determined from the date on which seized documents are considered to be handed over ignoring the fact that first proviso to section 153C is to be read only in the context of second proviso to sub-section 1 of section 153A, which deals with abatement of pending assessment/ reassessment proceedings on the date of initiation of search? 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that the six assessment years for the purpose of assessment u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 be determined from the date on which seized documents are considered to be handed over to the jurisdictional AO ignoring the fact that as per section 153C(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, the AO has to assess or reassess income of such other person in accordance with provision of the section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, itself, that the section 153A(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person 17[for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and] for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A : Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 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 Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person : Provided further that the Central Government may by rules18 made by it and published in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....block period would be the date on which, based on the seized documents, notice is issued to the 'other person' under Section 153 C of the Act. Thus in the present case, the six year period prior to AY 2012-13 i.e. AY 2007-08 to AY 2012-13. Thus no notice could be issued under Section 153 C of the Act to reopen the Assessee's assessment for AY 2006-07. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Incometax-7 v. RRJ Securities Ltd. [2016] 380 ITR 612 (Del) where this very question was examined and answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 8. In RRJ Securities (supra), the Court after noticing the decision in SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy CIT[2012] 346 ITR 177 (Del), held as follows: "21. As discussed hereinbefore, once the AO of the searched person is satisfied that the seized assets/documents belong to another person and the said assets/documents have been transferred to the AO of such other person, the proceedings for assessment/reassessment of income of the other person has to proceed in accordance with provisions of Section 153A of the Act. Section 153A requires that where a search has been initiated under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TR 569 (Del.). 10. Mr. Salil Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Assessee, has drawn the attention of the Court to the recent amendment made in Section 153 C of the Act by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 1st April 2017. This amendment in effect states that the block period for the searched person as well as the 'other person' would be the same six AYs immediately preceding the year of search. This amendment is prospective. 11. Mr. Ashok Manchanda, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Appellant, sought to pursue this Court to reconsider its view in RRJ Securities (supra). The Court declines to do so for more than one reason. First, for reasons best known to it, the Revenue has not challenged the decision of this Court in RRJ Securities (supra) in the Supreme Court. The said decision has been consistently followed by the authorities under this Court as well as by this court. Thirdly, the recent amendment to Section 153 C(1) of the Act states for the first time that for both the searched person and the other person the period of reassessment would be six AYs preceding the year of search. The said amendment is prospective. 12. Consequently, no substantial quest....