TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is common order. We are referring to AY 2012- 13. 3. The grounds of appeal for AY 2012-13 taken by the Revenue read as under :- "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the ease and in law the addition of Rs.2,75,18,088/- made in the order passed u/s 153C /143(3) of the Income Tax Act is arbitrary, against law and facts on record 2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assumption of jurisdiction by the ld. AO u/s 153C as well as proceeding conducted there under are against the provisions contained in the Income Tax Act) is bad in law, is without jurisdiction and barred by limitation and hence liable to be quashed. 3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition made ill the order passed u/s 153C is not based on judgment and inquiry conducted by the ld. AO and is not based on facts of the case but the addition has been made simply on the basis of incorrect facts. suspicion, assumption, surmises, & conjectures and without bringing any cogent material on record. 8 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO while making the above addition arbitrarily and, mechanically rejected the explanation and evidence tendered by the appellant and made the addition by drawing subjective, premeditated and preconceived inferences therefore the same is not sustainable. 9 The learned Assessing officer erred In' levying the interest and initiating the penalty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the date of satisfaction and were outside the purview of section 153C of the Act. In this regard, ld. CIT (A) also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra). Relevant findings of the Ld. CIT (A) is reproduced as under :- "4.2.4 I have considered facts of the case as well as written submission of the appellant. As noted in para 1 of the assessment order, a search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Income-tax Act was initiated on 07.04.2016 in the case of Sh. Harvansh Chawla at C- 17, Nizammudin East, New Delhi. During the course of search, documents and material containing information having a bearing on taxable income of M/s H N Properties Private Limited were seized. As note....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strued as the date of handing over of assets/documents belonging to the assessee (being the person other than the one searched) to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction to assess the said assessee. Further proceedings, by virtue of section 153C(l) 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 years for which assessments/reassessments could be made under section 153C would also have to be construed with reference to the date of handing over of assets/documents to the Assessing Officer of the assessee." After referring to several case laws, ld. CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2014-15 to 2019-20 and not AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14. 9. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue has tried to distinguish the case law by referring to rules of interpretation and amendment brought about by Finance Act, 2017. He has urged that there cannot be two different sets of 6 years for the purpose of 153A and 153C of the Act. He also relied upon the order of the AO. 10. Upon careful consideration, we note that in this case, there was a search conducted on 07.04.2016. AO's satisfaction for starting 153C proceedings against the present assessee was recorded on 29.03.2019. Taking this into account, six preceding assessment years are 2014-15 to 2019-20 which excludes AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14. This is as per the ratio laid down by aforesaid two ....