TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lding that the additions were not based on seized/incriminating material when the order the Assessing Officer contains exhaustive details of incriminating material and the information regarding the assessee extracted from it? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that transactions of the assessee recorded in unaccounted/parallel books of accommodation entry provider do not constitute incriminating document of the assessee? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing relief to the assessee by holding 3 that the additions were not based on seized/incriminating material when the disallowance of interest u/s 37 of the Act is directly linked to the incriminating material? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on jurisdictional High Court's decision in case Ojjus Medicare in holding that block periods for assessment under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents OR assets seized, by the jurisdictional....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....non-searched person, even this interpretation in contrary to the legislative intent since for the years after the search there can never be incriminating seized material and as when such assessment in years cannot be made u/s 153C of the Act? 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before OR during the course of hearing of the appeal." 3.1 Similar grounds have been raised in all appeals. In nutshell, these grounds challenge the jurisdictional issue of assumption of jurisdiction by Ld. Assessing Officer ('AO'). ITA No.3860/Del./2025, A.Y. 2010-11: 4. The relevant facts for the AY 2010-11, as a lead case, are that the assessee filed its original Income Tax Return ('ITR') of the relevant year on 29.09.2010 declaring income of Rs. 3,25,32,529/-. Search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') carried out On Alankit Group of cases on 18.10.2019 resulted seizure of some incriminating material including digital data. Based on the seized incriminating material/data/documents relating to the assessee, proceedings under section 153C of the Act were initiated on 23.06.2022 and the consequential assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2021-22 4. 2020-21 5. 2019-20 6. 2018-19 7. 2017-18 8. 2016-17 9. 2015-16 10. 2014-15 8. In view of above, the Ld. AR argued that AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 were beyond the period of 10 years ceiling prescribed under section 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Hence, he prayed for all these assessments to be held bad in the eyes of law. 9. For the above contention/argument, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasjit Singh [2023] SCC Online SC and the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 2024 (4) TMI 268, order dated April 3, 2024. 10. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on records. The Relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) reads as under: "5.13 As per the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, while the identification and computation of the six assessment years hinges upon the phrase "immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year" of search, the ten-year period would have to be reckoned from the 31st day of March of the Assessment Year relevant to the year of search because o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant assessment year" as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide the aforesaid order. Therefore, the assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) dated 31/03/2023 for AY 2010-11 is void-ab-initio and deserves to be quashed." 5.14 In view of the above, the assessment year 2010-11, which is under consideration, clearly falls outside the scope of application of section 153C of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is found to be correct on this count. Accordingly, by following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decisions of jurisdictional High Court, the impugned assessment order is beyond the limitation prescribed under section 153C of the Act, and therefore, the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer is not tenable in the light of aforesaid legal positions. Hence, the appeal on this ground is allowed. 5.15 The next ground is whether assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act would be legally sustainable when there was no incriminating material found/seized. Apparently, the additions are emanated from the regular books of account maintained by the appellant and from the audited financial state....