TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition of Rs. 3,70,00,000/-. 4. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us and only argued the legal ground no. 2 & 3, which reads as under:- "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment framed under section 153C/143(3) is bad and liable to be quashed as no valid notice under section 153C as required under the law has been issued and served on the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the proceedings initiated under section 153C and assumption of jurisdiction by AO are illegal and void ab initio." 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the following submissions :- "1. The present appeal is for assessment year 2015-16 is against CIT(A) order dated 09.05.2019, wherein CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,70,00,000/- made by AO via order dated 31.12.2016. However, the assessment order passed by the AO was without issue of notice under section 153C ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctfully following the decision of the cited case, it is held that in the present case, the assessment for AY 2021-22 should have been carried out by issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act and not u/s 143(2) of the Act as done by the A in this case. No other contrary facts or decision was brought on record by the Ld. DR Therefore, it is held that the assessment order dated 29.12.2022 passed us 143(3) of the Act by the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 30.06.2022 is bad in law and hence the notice us 143(2) of the Act, dated 30.06.2022 and the consequent assessment order dated 29.12.2022 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act are hereby quashed. The additional grounds filed by the assessee are allowed. > RAJA VARSHNEY VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31 NEW DELHI, 2024 (9) TMI 1625 - ITAT DELHI, Dated.- September 26, 2024- 12. On perusal of the satisfaction note it reveals that same was recorded on 10-10-2022 by the AO after giving the findings that the seized assets and documents /digital data and information relates to assessee and it is a fit case for initiating proceedings us 153C r.w.153A of the Act for the A. Y. 2015-16 to 2020-21. The AO has issued the notice u/s. 143(2) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urisdictional error and therefore liable to be quashed." 6. Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that in the present case a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on Tirupati assessee under section 153C of the Act by recording satisfaction on 02.12.2016 for AY 2009-10 to AY 2014-15. The copy of satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee has been placed at page no. 7-8 assuming the date of search as 11.11.2014. However, the deemed date of search in the present case will be 02.12.2016 in view of the Apex Court judgement in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 VERSUS JASJIT SINGH, 2023 (10) TMI 572 - SUPREME COURT, Dated.- September 26, 2023 and hence the period of block assessment of six years immediately preceding assessment year relevant to previous year in which search was conducted has to be reckoned from 02.12.2016. Therefore, in the present case assessment proceedings for AY 2015-16, assessment should have been framed under section 153C of the Act after issuing notice under section 153C of the Act. However, proceedings in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... search and six years period would be reckoned from this date. The findings of the Tribunal in the case of Jasjit Singh (supra) in para-15 to para -20 is reproduced as under:- "15. We find that an identical issue has been decided by Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DSL Properties P. Ltd. (supra) in favour of the assessee accepting the similar contention of the assessee. Similar view has been expressed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of V.K. Fiscal (supra) holding that the date of receiving of the seized documents would become the date of search and six years period would be reckoned from this date. For a ready reference para no. 19, 21, 22 & 23 of the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DSL Properties (supra) are being reproduced hereunder: 19. "We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Proviso to section 153C reads as under: "Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search u/s 132 or making of requisition u/s 132A in the second proviso to [sub-section (1) off section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....While interpreting section 153C, we have already held that for initiating valid jurisdiction u/s 153C, even if the AO of the person searched and the AO of such other person is the same, he has to first record the satisfaction in the file of the person searched and thereafter, such note alongwith the seized document/books of account is to be placed in the file of such other person. The date on which this exercise is done would be considered as the date of receiving the books of account or document by the AO having jurisdiction over such other person. Though while examining the facts of the assessee's case we have arrived at the conclusion that no such exercise has been properly carried out and, therefore, initiation of proceedings u/s 153C itself is invalid, however, since both the parties have argued the issue of period of limitation also, we deem it proper to adjudicate the same. Since in this case satisfaction is recorded on 21st June, 2010 and notice u/s 153C is also issued on the same date, then only conclusion that can be drawn is that the AO of such other person has taken over the possession of seized document on 21st June, 2010. Accordingly, as per section 153(1), the AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of account or document to the AO having jurisdiction over the other person. Thereafter, the AO having jurisdiction over the other person has to proceed against him and issue notice to that person in order to assess or reassess the income of such other person in the manner contemplated by the provisions of section 153A. Now a question may arise as to the applicability of the second proviso to section 153A in the case of the other person, in order to examine the question of pending proceedings which have to abate. In the case of the searched person, the date with reference to which the proceedings for assessment or reassessment of any assessment year within the period of the six assessment years shall abate, is the date of initiation of the search u/s 132 or the requisition u/s 132A. For instance, in the present case, with reference to the Puri Group of Companies, such date will be 5.1.2009. However, in the case of the other person, which in the present case is the petitioner herein, such date will be the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisition by the AO having jurisdiction over such other person. In the case of the other person, the ques....