TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment year 2014-15. 2. Brief facts, relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal, are that a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Revenue Department on dated 15.10.2013 in the case of Tyagi Group of cases, on the basis of which the alleged satisfaction was recorded in the case of Assessee on dated 12.08.2015 for initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. Ultimately the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer. 2.1 The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the assessment order before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order sustained the assessment order, while dismissing the appeal of the Assessee, against which the Assessee is in appeal before us. 3. Heard the parties and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount or documents or asset seized, therefore the instant case as pertains to AY 2014-15 also falls within 6 years. In support of its contention, ld. AR of the Assessee relied upon various judgments, out of which we are referring only one by the Hon'ble Tribunal in ITA No. 4051 & 4052/Del/2017, in the case of ACIT vs. Ankit Nivesh, wherein, Hon'ble Bench while taking into consideration various judgments of Hon'ble High Courts, held as under: 11. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders as well as material referred to before us. The Assessee is engaged in the business of investment and sale purchase of shares during the relevant assessment year and filed its return of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essing Officer of the person other than the one searched assumes the possession of the seized assets would be the relevant date for applying the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. 13. In the following judgments, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court have clearly held that the provisions of six years would have to be counted from the year in which satisfaction note is prepared. a. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of RRI Securities (380ITR 612) hasheld that; - dated 30.10.2015 Held: In terms of proviso to Section 153C of the Act, a reference to the date of the search 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....person, the period for which the assessments could be reopened would be much beyond the period of six years. This is so because the date of handing over of assets/documents of a person, other than the searched person, to the AO would be subsequent to the date of the search. This, in our view, would be contrary to the scheme of Section 153C (1) of the Act, which construes the date of receipt of assets and documents by the AO of the Assessee (other than one searched) as the date of the search on the Assessee.The rationale appears to be that whereas in the case of a searched person the AO of the searched person assumes possession of seized assets/documents on search of the Assessee: the seized assets/documents belonging to a person other than ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... valid, there had to be a satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the searched person. The Court also stated that - This position again stands settled by the decision in RRI Securities Ltd (supra). The fact that the Revenue's SLP against the said decision is pending in the Supreme Court does not make a difference sine the operation of the said decision has not been stayed. c. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Raj BuildworthPvt. Ltd. (113 taxmann.com 600) has held that: dated - 23.10.2018 The Assessing Officer of the search party and the respondent assessee was the same. In such a factual matrix, the Assessing Officer could not have been initiated and passed an Assessment Order under Section 153C of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... six preceding assessment years in the case of the assessee is from Assessment Year 2009-10 and ending on 2014-15. Accordingly, we hold that ld. CIT (A) was correct in law that no assessment u/s.153C was made in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 and is barred by limitation. 15. Similarly in Assessment Year 2008-09 also we need the same fate which is also beyond the limitation period of six years as stated above. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is upheld and the Revenue's Appeal is dismissed." 4. The Ld. DR at the outset contented that the Assessee did not raise this issue specifically in it grounds of appeal whereas the Assessee claimed that ground no 2 covers this issue squarely. We have considered the said factual po....