TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the assessment order framed under section 147 of the Act is bad in law as the same was required to be done under section 153A/153C of the Act. 3. The necessary facts are that the assessee is an individual. An authorization of search warrant under section 132 of the Act was issued as on 15th Nov 2017 in the name of Smt. Seema Goenka, Smt. Sapna Goenka and the appellant assessee Ms. Aakurti Ruia to search Locker No. 884, U & I Vaults Limited at F-41, South Extn, Part-1, Delhi. The impugned Locker was in the name of appellant assessee. Accordingly, the search was conducted as on 16th Nov-2017 and search was again resumed based on same authorization as on 04th Jan-2018 at 5:50 PM and concluded as 05th Jan 2018 at 2:05 PM. At the time of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. For the first time, the assessee before us raised legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment order. The learned AR before us contended that assessee is searched assessee as evident from the panchnama drawn as on 4th January 2018. Therefore, being the case of search, the assessment was required to be framed u/s 153A/153C of the Act. But the lower authorities erred in framing the assessment under section 147 of the Act which is contrary to the provision of the Act. The learned AR also contended that being a search case, the assessment was required to be completed within the time limit prescribed under section 153B of the Act. Thus, the assessment was required to be com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which stands in her name. Thus, the assessee was not a third party to the search, but one of the persons searched. Therefore, we hold that argument of the learned DR that the search was on "another person" is contrary to the panchnama itself. Therefore, the departmental argument cannot be accepted. 9.2 Having held that the assessee was a search party, the provision of section 153A to section 153B of the Act will get triggered which have overriding effect over general provisions of the Act. In holding so, we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal v. Asstt. CIT [2024] 161 taxmann.com 255 which was followed by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 153A of the Act, because the statute expressly provides a time limit for completion of assessment for six years as well as the assessment year relevant to the year of search. 9.5 The provision of section 153B(1)(b) clearly states that the assessment or reassessment for the assessment year relevant to previous year in which search conducted, or requisition made shall be completed within 21 months from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorisation was executed. 9.6 In the present case, the last panchnama was drawn on 05 January 2018. Therefore, the financial year of execution of search is FY 2017-18, and 21 months from 31 March 2018 expires on 31 December 2019. This statutory time limit is absolute and mandatory.....