TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 21.07.2016 at the residential as well as office premises of M3M Group of Cases and Shri Gaurav Jain, the then VP Finance of the M3M Group. Among the seized documents, information pertaining to the assessee was found and the Assessing Officer recorded his satisfaction that the same had bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee. The case was further centralized in the Circle by and under the order dated 10.10.2018 under Section 127 of the Act and the seized documents/materials in the group was received by the Circle from the DDIT (Inv.)-1 Gurugram. The satisfaction note was therefore, recorded by the ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad i.e. the AO of the assessee on 31.10.2018 and notice under Section 153C of the Act was finally issued to the assessee on 22.11.2018 directing the assessee to file its return of income in respect of Assessment Year commencing from 2011-12 to 2017-18 i.e. the six Assessment Years immediately preceding the Assessment Year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted in this case. The block years were reopened for the period of A.Ys. 2011-12 to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment by Assessing Officer of the assessee other than the searched person is construed as the date of search. As the date of recording satisfaction by the AO of the assessee was 31.10.2018, the past 6 years ought to have been considered for reopening was from A.Y. 2013-14 not A.Y. 2011-12 or 2012-13. Precisely the search of M3M Group was conducted though on 21.07.2016, the starting point of computation of block period under Section 153C of the Act would be the date of recording of satisfaction on the basis of seized documents and notice issued to the assessee and the reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 is, therefore, beyond jurisdiction, not maintainable and void ab initio. 7. We note that the Learned DR has not been able to controvert such submissions made by the Assessee's Counsel. 8. We have further considered the CBDT Circular being No.2/2018 dated 15.02.2018 annexed at page 2 of the paper book filed before us, the relevant portion thereof is as follows: "80.1 The provisions of clause (c) of the section 197 of the Finance Act, 2016 provide that where any income has accrued, arisen or been received or any asset has been acquired out of such incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nate Bench in the matter of Shalimar Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as relied upon by the Learned AR wherein the identical issue has been discussed in the following manner : "32. Before answering these question certain facts further need to be noted. On 03.09.2008 notice u/s 153A was issued by the ld AO in case of BPTP Ltd for Assessment Year 2003-04 to 2007-08. This company was incorporated on 11.08.2003 so the effective years were assessment year 2004-05 to 2007-08. No satisfaction note was recorded by the ld AO in the file of BPTP Ltd with respect to the documents belonging to the assessee. For this proposition, the assessee has shown the order sheet of BPTP Ltd as well as letter dated 04.01.2016 of the ld AO, wherein, in response to RTI Query, it was stated that since the ld AO of BPTP Ltd and the assessee was same, therefore, no separate satisfaction was recorded in the file of BPTP Ltd before assuming jurisdiction in case of assessee u/s 153C of the Act. Further satisfaction was recorded in the case of the assessee on 19.08.2009 by the ld AO which is placed at page No. 17 to 20 of the PB. However, on 19.08.2009 itself, notice u/s 153C of the Act were issued to the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the assessment year relevant to the assessment year in which search is conducted or requisition is made; whereas the second proviso to subsection (i) of section 153A also provides that assessment or reassessment of these six assessment years, if pending on the date of initiation of search u/s 132 or making of requisition u/s 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. On this basis he submits that, inasmuch as the search u/s 132 was conducted in the case of Sh Harvansh Chawla on 07.04.2016, the date of search falls in A.Y. 2017-18 in the case of Sh Harvansh Chawla, and consequently, the assessing officer in the case of Sh Harvansh Chawla was empowered to initiate the proceedings u/s 153A for immediately preceding six years from A.Y. 2011-12 to A.Y. 2016-17. He, however, submits that in case of the assessee who happens to be the "person other than the searched person", provisions of section 153C are applicable and in such case, the "date of search or date of requisition" as referred to in section 153A issubstituted by the "date of handing over of documents by the assessing officer of searched person to the assessing officer of other person". 6. On this premise, he continues to submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... PR. CIT (CENTRAL) GURUGRAM. 2021 (5)TMI 722 - ITAT DELHI I.T.A. NO. 50/DEL/2021 in support of his argument that the assessment is time-barred. 9. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Insofar as the facts are concerned there is no dispute. Search in the case of Harvesh Chawla took place on 7/4/2016, the satisfaction by the learned Assessing Officer of the searched person was recorded on 29/3/2019 and the seized material was handed over to the learned Assessing Officer of the assessee who had recorded his satisfaction on 15/9/2019. It is clear that the date of search had fallen in the A.Y. 2017-18 which is relevant for the case of the person searched; whereas the satisfaction recorded by the learned Assessing Officer of the searched person on 29/3/2019 had fallen in the assessment year 2019-20 in which case the immediately preceding 6 assessment years would be assessment years 2013-14 to 2018-19; and the date of satisfaction recorded by the learned Assessing Officer of the assessee on 15/5/2019 falls in the assessment year 2020-21 in which case the immediately preceding 6 assessment years would be the assessment years from 2014- 15 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e immediately preceding 6 Assessment Years would be the Assessment Years from 2013- 14 to 2018-2019 . Therefore, the notice under Section 153C of the Act could not have been issued for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 as rightly pointed out by Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee. Thus, taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter and further having regard to the amendment under 2017 Act w.e.f 01.04.2017 with prospective effect as clarified by CBDT Circular No.2/2018 dated 15.02.2018, as the recording of satisfaction was made by the Learned AO of the assessee only on 30.10.2018, the issuance of notice under Section 153C of the Act for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 since had not fall in the previous 6 years, the assumption of jurisdiction in reopening of assessment under Section 153C of the Act for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012- 13, therefore, found to be not maintainable. The same is void ab initio and thus, quashed. 15. In the result, the assessee's appeals for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 are allowed. 16. Apart from the above fact, the Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and also in fact in upholding the assumption of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the total income for the A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2017-18 of M/s. Marconi Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, decided to issue notice to that other person being the assessee before us under Section 153C r.w.s 153A of the Act. The satisfaction note is, thus admittedly fails to demonstrate the details of the information contained in the Annexure A-3 which could lead to recording of satisfaction that the same have bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee. The reason assigned to the satisfaction note is, thus, not found to be logical, rather vague. 18. A decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society [2017] taxmann.com 146 (Delhi) as relied upon by the Learned AO already settled the issue and held this to be an essential requirements as submitted by Learned AR. The relevant para of the same are reproduced as under: "(18) The ITAT permitted this additional ground by giving a reason that it was a jurisdictional issue taken up on the basis of facts already on the record and, therefore, could be raised. In this behalf, it was noted by the ITAT that as per the provisions of Section 153C of the Act, incriminating material....