TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led by the assessee for A.Ys 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. Since the underlying facts are common in all the appeals of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The challenge in the grounds raised by the Revenue is in respect of the ld. CIT(A)'s action in holding that block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Act have to be calculated from the date of receipt of the books of account, documents or assets seized by the Assessing Officer of the non-searched person and not from the date of initiation of search by relying upon the first proviso to section 153C of the Incometax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short]. 4. Representati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order of the ld. CIT(A) and has come in appeal before us. 8. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that as the satisfaction was recorded on 17.02.2022, the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made, as per the proviso of section 153C, becomes AY 2023-24. The ten assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made, begins from AY 2023-24. 9. The ld AR vehemently argued that the impugned A.Y 2011-12 and AY 2012-13, is therefore, out of the block of ten assessment years for which assessment could be made. It was submitted that as the satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was enacted. The revenue argued that the proviso [to Section 153(c)(1)] is confined in its application to the question of abatement. It is quite plausible that the AO seized of the materials....would take his own time to forward the papers and materials belonging to the third party, to the concerned AO. In that event if the date would virtually 'relate back' as is sought to be contended by the revenue, (to the date of seizure), the prejudice caused to the third party, who would be drawn into proceedings as it were unwittingly (and in many cases have no concern with it at all), is disproportionate." 11. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has further elaborated the legal dictum in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd [2024] [supra] wherein it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g of the six AYs' would require one to firstly identify the FY in which the search was undertaken and which would lead to the ascertainment of the AY relevant to the previous year of search. The block of six AYs' would consequently be those which immediately precede the AY relevant to the year of search. In the case of a search assessment undertaken in terms of Section 153C, the solitary distinction would be that the previous year of search would stand substituted by the date or the year in which the books of accounts or documents and assets seized are handed over to the jurisdictional AO as opposed to the year of search which constitutes the basis for an assessment under Section 153A." 12. The law as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supre....