AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 971
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi vide order dated 29.10.2018 and subsequently order u/s 127 of the Act was passed. After examination of seized material related to the assessee and recording satisfaction, the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny u/s 153C of the Act for the A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 and u/s 143(3) for the A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee filed his Return of Income on 03-08-2017 declaring total income of Rs. 12,90,010/-. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 02.09.2018. Questionnaire along with notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 09-11- 2019. Sh. Niranjan Lal Gupta, CA, AR of the assessee attended the hearings and filed submissions 3. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO, vide order dated 31.12.2019 made addition of Rs. 44,77,00,000/-. 4. Against order dated 31.12.2019 of Ld. AO, assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was allowed vide order dated 16.08.2025. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant-Department of revenue preferred present appeal on following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CITIA) is correct in allowing relief on addition of Rs 44,77,00,000 by relying on decision of Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court in case of Ojjus Medicare P Ltd. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the date of receipt of seized material has been considered as deemed date of search by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jasjit Singh only for purposes of counting number of years that can be re-opened u/s 153C and not for application of section for assessment purposes. 8. Ld. Authorized Representative for respondent-assessee submitted that, a jurisdictional ground relating to validity of instant reopening u/s 147/148 was duly raised and pleaded before Ld. CIT(A) and jurisdictional aspect of mechanical approval u/s 151 of Addl CIT qua impugned assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act were raised. Copy of consolidated common approval dated 29.12.2019, regarding 11 different assessees' for several years is attached with the application. Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Vijay Bihari Kandhari Vs. ACIT had set aside proceedings u/s 153C for AY 2014-15 to 2019-20 as time barred, wherein search took place on 21.08.2019 and the Ld. AO of searched party, as well as the third party was one and the same. 9. From examination of record, in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that, Ld. CIT(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person: Provided further that the Central Government may by rules made by it and published in the Official Gazette, specify the class or classes of cases in respect of such other person, in which the Assessing Officer shall not be required to issue notice for assessing or reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years as referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated. (2) Where books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned as referred to in sub-section (1) has or have been received by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person after the due date for furnishing the return of income for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A and in respect of such assessment year- (a) no return of income has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o was to cater not merely to the question of abatement but also with regard to the date from which the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of which the returns were to be filed by the third party (whose premises are not searched and in respect of whom the specific provision under Section 153C was enacted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court finally concluded that in case of non-searched person, the date of receipt of books of accounts by the jurisdictional officer of such other person shall be the date of reference for calculation of six assessment years for which the Assessing Officer may initiate assessment in terms of section 153C of the Act. Relevant extracts of such judgment are also accorded hereinbelow: "9. It is evident on a plain interpretation of Section 153C(1) that the Parliamentary intent to enact the proviso was to cater not merely to the question of abatement but also with regard to the date from which the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of which the returns were to be filed by the third party (whose premises are not searched and in respect of whom the specific provision under Section 153-C was enacted. The revenue argued that the proviso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rged to ten AYs consequent to the addition of the stipulation of "relevant assessment year" and which was defined to mean those years which would fall beyond the six-years block period but not later than ten AYs' The block period for search assessment thus came to be enlarged to stretch up to ten AYs' The 2017 Amending Act also put in place would have to inevitably be shown satisfied before the search assessment could stretch to the "relevant assessment year". The preconditions include the prescription of income having escaped assessment and represented in the form of an asset amounting to or "likely to amount to" INR 50 lakhs or more in the "relevant assessment year" or in aggregate in the "relevant assessment years". C. Section 153C, on the other hand, pertains to the non-searched entity and in respect of whom any material, books of accounts or documents may have been seized and were found to belong to or pertain to a person other than the searched person. As in the case of Section 153A, Section 153C was also to apply to all searches that may have been undertaken between the period 01 June 2003 to 31 March 2021. In terms of that provision, the AO stands similarly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of the six AYs 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 AY relevant to the year of search. This, since undisputedly, Explanation 1 of Section 153A requires us to reckon it "from the end of the assessment year". This distinction would have to necessarily be acknowledged in light of the statute having consciously adopted the phraseology "immediately preceding". In the case of Sanjeev Gupta vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1927/Del/2024, Hon'ble ITAT has given decision about the wrong assessment made by the AO u/s 143(3) in place of u/s 153C of the Act. Hon'ble ITAT in its decision, dated 27.02.2025 held: "as in the case of the assessee also the satisfaction note for initiating the proceedings u/s 153C were recorded by the AO of the assessee on 10-10-2-2022 thus assessment year relevant for previous year in which search was conducted in the case of the assessee should be the Assessment Year AY 2023-24 and the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant for the previous year in which search was co....