TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1551
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arch was conducted on 22.10.2016 ie, during F.Y. 2016-17, therefore assessment proceedings were initiated u/s 143(2) of the Act for the year under consideration and six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted assessment proceedings were initiated in accordance with the legal framework provided under Section 153C of the Act. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not adjudicating the appeal without considering the merits of the case." 3. The DR placed reliance on the order of the AO and the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Ld.CIT(A). 4. Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh (458 ITR 437) and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt.Ltd. (161 taxmnan.com 160) held that the impugned assessment year i.e. 2017-18, the assessment should have been completed by issue of notice u/s.153C and not u/s.143(3) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding over of the seized documents/date of recording satisfaction by the AO of that other person. 9.4 In the case of the assessee, such date of handing over the seized material by the AO of searched person is on 26.09.2018. Therefore, the six preceding assessment years for the purpose of making an assessment under Section 153C will be counted from this date, i.e., 26.09.2018 and the six preceding assessment years will cover the AY 2013-14 to AY 2018-19. 9.5 The assessee, thus, submitted that since AY 2017-18, the year under consideration, falls within the block of six preceding assessment years, the assessment for this year should have been conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 153C, rather than Section 143(3) of the Act. 9.6 The assessee also submitted that the assessment order for the relevant assessment year was passed under Section 143(3) without recording satisfaction note or without issuing notice u/s 153C, which are the primary statutory conditions for making assessment u/s 153C, therefore, the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is suffered from jurisdictional defect and the same is ball in law and hence, deserv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer. 9.9 The following dates and events are relevant to resolve this controversy. The primary issue raised by the assessee through the additional grounds is whether the assessment order for the relevant assessment year (AY 2017-18) should have been passed under Section 153C of the Act, supported by a recorded satisfaction note and a notice under Section 153C. 9.10 Another important fact is that the AO calculated the six-year block period for assessments under Section 153C of the Act from the date of the search on 22.10.2016, which is clearly not the correct position in law. 9.11 This issue as to what will be the terminal date for computing six assessment years block period in case of a non-searched person is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-14 vs. Jasjit Singh [2023] 458 ITR 437 (SC)[26-09-2023] has in very clear terms held that in case of non-searched person, the date of receipt of books of accounts Λ.Υ. 2017-18, Appeal No.30/10524/2019-20 by the jurisdictional officer of such other person shall be the date of reference for calculation of six assessment years for making assessment under section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he books or documents or assets seized or requisitioned which falls under A.Y. 2023-24 for year under consideration (present case). Relevant conclusion para of this decision is reproduced as below: *D. The First Proviso to Section 153C introduces a legal fiction on the basis of which the commencement date for computation of the six year or the ten year block is deemed to be the date of receipt of books of accounts by the jurisdictional AO. The identification of the starting block for the purposes of computation of the six and the ten year period is governed by the First Proviso to Section 153C, which significantly shifts the reference point spoken of in Section 153A(1), while defining the point from which the period of the "relevant assessment year" is to be calculated, to the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the non- searched person. The shift of the relevant date in the case of a non-searched person being regulated by the First Proviso of Section 153C(1) is an issue which is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively settled by virtue of the decisions of this Court in SSP Aviation and RRJ Secu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out under Section 153C rather than Section 143(3). The ITAT accepted the additional ground and concluded that the assessment for AY 2021-22 should have been conducted under Section 153C instead of Section 143(3). As a result, the ITAT quashed both the notice under Section 143(2) and the assessment order issued under Section 143(3) of the Act. Relevant paras of the decision are reproduced as follows: "4. The assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 24.12.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 63,67,760/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 29.03.2022. A search and seizure action was carried out on 06.01.2021 in the cases of Hans Group/Praveen Jain/Janco Limited and the close associates and few transacting parties with whom the assessee Ms. Akansha Gupta had entered into unaccounted cash transactions, According to the AO, during the course of search action u/s 132 of the Act, conducted at C-42, C block, Preet Vihar, Delhi- 110092, certain documents/digital evidences in from of clone data of Praveen Kumar Jain's mobile were seized. In this clone data, a Kachi Parchi was found from where the AO found evidence of receipt of un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he date of search and six years period would be reckoned from this date........ 9. Therefore, in view of the above decision, the date of recording of the satisfaction will be the deemed date for the possession of the seized documents, which is 30,06.2022 in the present case and the date of search and six years period would be reckoned from this date i.e. 30.06.2022. Therefore, there is merit in the submission of the assessee that the assessment year relevant for previous year in which search was conducted in the case of the assessee will be AY 2023-24 and the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant for the previous year in which search was conducted for initiating proceeding u/s 153C of the Act will be AY 2018-19 to 2022-23. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the cited case, it is held that in the present case, the assessment for AY 2021-22 should have been carried out by issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act and not u/s 143(2) of the Act as done by the AO in this case. No other contrary facts or decision was brought on record by the Ld. DR Therefore, it is held that the assessment order dated 29.12.2022 passed u/s 143(3) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of recording satisfaction note by the AO on 26.09.2018 and not from the date of search. Appellant has furnished satisfaction note, wherein in appellant's case, satisfaction note and notices have been issued for on A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 only. The satisfaction note of searched person and appellant is scanned as below: satisfaction note drawn by the Id. AO of searched person and the id. AO of the appellant company is being reproduced hereinbelow: However, the correct six assessment years block period for the purpose of making assessment u/s 153C in case of the assessee would be the AY 2013-14 to AY 2018-19. Admittedly, the year under consideration (A.Υ. 2017-18) falls in this correct block period of six AYs, therefore, the assessment for the impugned AY 2017-18 should have been carried out in accordance with the provisions of Section 153C of the Act and consequent order should be passed under that section only not under sec. 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed." 5. On careful perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the findings thereon we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. ....