TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1577
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14-15 (hereinafter referred to as "the assessment year under consideration" for short) by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent" for short). 3.1 The petitioner is one of the major partners of PSY Group which is engaged in the business of real estate. The said PSY group and its associated groups of Gandhinagar including the petitioner were subjected to search action under Section 132 of the Act on 08.02.2024. In the Satisfaction Note prepared for assumption of jurisdiction, it was stated that some incriminating material, both physical and digital had been found which confirmed that PSY and its associated groups had entered into unaccounted transactions through various firms. 4. The petitioner has challenged the said notice under Section 148 of the Act on the ground of limitation. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jaimin Gandhi for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has acted illegally and without jurisdiction while issuing Notice under Section 148 of the Act as the same is barred by limitation. It was further contended that the impugned notice is time-barred under the statutory scheme governi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame is reproduced as under: Number Assessment Year 1st year Assessment Year 2024-25 2nd year Assessment Year 2023-24 3rd year Assessment Year 2022-23 4th year Assessment Year 2021-22 5th year Assessment Year 2020-21 6th year Assessment Year 2019-20 7th year Assessment Year 2018-19 8th year Assessment Year 2017-18 9th year Assessment Year 2016-17 10th year Assessment Year 2015-16 5.4 In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Gandhi has placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 164 taxmann.com 746/469 ITR 32 (Delhi)/Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12091 of 2023 decided on 27.05.2024. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd. [2024] 161 taxmann.com 160/465 ITR 101 (Delhi). Finally, he has also placed reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court, Bench at Madurai, passed in A.R. Safiullah v. ACIT [Writ Petition (MD) No. 4327 of 2021, dated 24-3-2021]. 5.5 Thus, it is urged that the impugned notice issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od by excluding the previous year from computation of ten years. Thus, it is urged that this Court may take a different view, disagreeing with the judgments of the Delhi High Court as well as the Kerala High Court, and it is urged that the action of the respondent may be upheld for reopening the Assessment Year 2014-15. 6.4 It was further submitted that applying the decision in case of Bhavin Kishorbhai Zinzuwadia v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2024] 169 Taxmann.com 505 (Guj.), wherein this court has accepted the calculation of ten assessment years for the purpose of Section 153C of the Act excluding the search year / the year in which the incriminating material is received by the JAO of the other person. 6.5 Thus, it is urged that the action of the respondent in issuing the impugned notice for the A.Y. 2014-15 under Section 148 of the Act may be upheld and the present petition may be dismissed. 7. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. We have also perused the case laws cited, considered the provisions threadbare and have also perused the material on record. 8. The sole issue that arises for consideration in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section is "six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted" and "for the relevant assessment year or years." is phrased independently, disjointed from earlier phrase. (e) In juxtaposition, the Fourth Proviso permits assessment beyond six years subject to specified conditions and refers to "relevant assessment year" as stated in Explanation 1 that defines "relevant assessment year" as: "For the purpose of this sub-section, the expression "relevant assessment year" shall mean an assessment year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than ten assessment years from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made." (f) The key expression that flows from reading of the section is "not later than ten assessment years from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted". Thus, the computational framework of Section 153A of the Act, including Ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction up to ten years is not a mere arithmetic extension of the six-year model; it is governed by a separately structured computational rule. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has consciously created: * A backward-looking "preceding" model (six years), and * A reckoning "from the end of the assessment year" model (ten years). Thus, it can be concluded that Section 153A of the Act prescribes two distinct and independent computational regimes. The six assessment years are those "immediately preceding" the assessment year relevant to the previous year of search, thereby excluding the search year whereas the ten assessment years under Explanation 1 are to be computed "from the end of the assessment year" relevant to the previous year of search. The statutory language necessarily results in inclusion of the search assessment year within the ten-year reckoning. Any interpretation that applies the six-year exclusion model, if made applicable to the ten-year block, would defeat the legislative scheme and render material words redundant. Accordingly, while computing the extended ten-year period under Explanation 1 to Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....22-23 and the corresponding six AYs' would by as follows: Computation of the six-year block period as provided under section 153C of the Act No of years AY 2021-22 1 AY 2020-21 2 AY 2019-20 3 AY 2018-19 4 AY 2017-18 5 AY 2016-17 6 89. That takes us then to the issue of identifying the "relevant assessment year" for the purposes of computing the ten year block. Explanation 1 to section 153A specifies the manner in which the entire ten AY period is to be computed. While the computation of six AYs follows the position as enunciated and identified above, Explanation I prescribes that the ten AYs' would have to be computed from the end of the AY relevant to the FY in which the search was conducted or requisition made The ten AY period consequently is to be reckoned from the end of the AY pertaining to the previous year in which the search was conducted as distinct from the preceding year which is spoken of in the case of the six relevant AYs. 90. Viewed in that light, and while keeping the period of 01 April 2021 to 31 March 2022 as the constant, the relevant AY would be AY 2022-23. The ten AYs would have to be computed fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase on hand, the statute has prescribed one mode of computing the six years and another mode for computing the ten years. Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted. Applying this yardstick, the six years would go up to 2013-14. The search assessment year, namely, 2019-20 has to be excluded. This is because, the statute talks of the six years preceding the search assessment year. But, while computing the ten assessment years, the starting point has to be the end of the search assessment year. In other words, search assessment year has to be including in the latter case. It is not for me to fathom the wisdom of the parliament. I cannot assume that the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 intended to bring in four more years over and above the six years already provided within the scope of the provision. When the law has prescribed a particular length, it is not for the court to stretch it. Plasticity is the new mantra in neuroscience, thanks to the teachings of Norman Doidge. It implies that contrary to settled....