TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The applications stand disposed of. ITA 208/2025 3. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 has been filed to challenge the order dated 30 05.2024 passed by the ITAT in ITA 886/Del/2020. 4. Some of the facts relevant to be noted are that pursuant to search and seizure operations in the business and residential premises of Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Mr. Mukesh Kumar and other group of cases based at Delhi, it was found that the group is an entry operator providing accommodation entries to beneficiaries. It was the case of the appellant/the Revenue that various incriminating papers/documents were found and seized during the course of search and seizure operations in both the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd addition was made which have been deleted by the CIT(A) for which the Revenue is in appeal raising the following grounds:- "1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and law in holding that the assessment years covered u/s 153A and 153C are different. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the amendment u/s 153C as prospective in nature without appreciating the fact that the same are clarificatory in nature. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and law in treating the date of handing over of documents as the date of search for deciding the relevant assessment year without appreciating the fact that the provisions of section153C flows from provisions of section 153A and the assessment years for both the sections have to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-7 v. RRJ Securities Ltd : 2015:DHC:8989- DB. 8. Mr. Puneet Rai, learned SSC for the appellant/the Revenue has drawn our attention to Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the said judgment, which reads as under; "23. In the present case, the Assessee had claimed that the assessments for the concerned assessment years were not pending on the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO and, therefore, would not abate by virtue of the second proviso to Section 153A of the Act. Further, the period of six years would also have to be reckoned with respect to the date of recording of satisfaction note that is, 8th September, 2010 and not the date of search. 24. As discussed hereinbefore, in terms of proviso t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts in relation to six previous years preceding the year in which the search takes place can be reopened but in case of any other person, who is not searched but his assets are seized from the searched 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 whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upra) shall have no applicability. 11. On a pointed query whether the plea sought to be urged, was taken before the ITAT, Mr. Rai, has drawn our attention to ground 2 of the grounds raised before the ITAT, which we have already reproduced above. 12. Mr. Rai, has not shown us anything contrary to say that the amendment of 2017 was given effect from a retrospective date. In other words, the amendment being prospective would surely have no bearing on the issue in hand as the date of search was of the year 2015 and in that sense the issue in hand is covered by the judgment of RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra) which has been relied upon by the ITAT while rejecting the appeal of the Revenue. 13. In the case in hand, the search having been carried ou....