TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasjit Singh (458 ITR 437) and the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (161 taxmann.com 160), the assessment year under consideration shall fall within the block period of six assessment years and therefore, the assessment should have been completed u/s.153C of the Act and not u/s.143(3) of the Act as was done by the AO. This contention of the assessee was accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) and allowed additional ground raised by the assessee. The correct block period of six assessment years for the purpose of making assessment u/s.153C of the Act in the case of the assessee would be from A.Y. 2017-18 to A.Y.2022-23 and therefore, the assessment year under consideration i.e. 2021-22 falls within the block period of six years and in which the case the assessment for the impugned assessment year i.e. 2021-22 should have been carried out in accordance with law u/s.153C of the Act and not under the provisions u/s.143(3) of the Act. While holding so the Ld. CIT(A) observed as under :- 10. Legal position regarding the contentions raised by the assessee through addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uments/date of recording satisfaction by the AO of that other person, 10.4 In the case of the assessee satisfaction note is recorded is on 23.08.2022, Therefore, the six preceding assessment years for the purpose of making an assessment under Section 153C will be counted from this date, i.e., 23.08.2022 and the six preceding assessment years will cover the AY 2017-18 to AY 2022-23. 10.5 The assessee, thus, submitted that since AY 2021-22, 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. 10.6 I have considered the facts of the case, the legal contentions raised by the assessee through the additional ground, the written submissions made in this regard, and the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 10.7 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 2021-22) should have been passed under Section 153C of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the requirement in law. Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be attributed to Parliament. On the other hand, a plain reading of Section 153C supports the interpretation which this Court adopts. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds no merit in these appeals they are accordingly dismissed, without order on costs." 10.11 Further, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi also in the case of OJJUS MEDICARE PVT. LTD. [2024] 161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi)[0 04-2024] after taking into consideration the various decisions on this is including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jas Singh (supra) held that Block period of six preceding AYs u/s 153C shall computed from the date of receipt by the AO of the non-searched person of 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 r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceipts amounting to 194 lakhs and a commission payment of Rs. 2.50 lakhs related to a property sale by the assessee to Ms. Navita Malhotra and Mr. Gurdeep Singh. Before the ITAT, the assessee presented an additional ground, contesting the validity of the assessment order under Section 143(3) dated 29.12.2022, which followed a notice under Section 143(2) issued on 30.06.2022. The assessee contended that the assessment for the relevant year should have been conducted under Section 153C, as the satisfaction note was recorded on 30.06.2022. Consequently, the six-year block for assessments under Section 153C runs from this date, covering AY 2017-18 to AY 2022-23. Since the assessment year in question, 2021-22, falls within this block, the assessment should have been carried 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a of Pravin Kumar Jain's Mobile marked as Annexure-5 belongs to the assessee, which has bearing on the determination of total income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years referred to in sub section-1 of section 153A of the Act and it was a fit case for initiating proceedings in the case of the assessee for AY 2015-16 to 2020-21 u/s 153C of the Act and for AY 2021-22 u/s 143(2) of the Act. Thereafter, he issued a notice u/s 143(2) on 30.06.2022 for AY 2021-22. On similar facts, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jasjit Singh (supra) referred to the decision in the case of Coordinate Bench in the case of V.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 5460 to 5465/Del/2012, wherein, it was held that the date of receiving of the seized documents would become the 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 Le. 30.06.2022. Therefore, there is merit in th....