TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 1584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by limitation. 2. The notice issued u/s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('ITA') beyond a period of 6 years is bad in law and beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer since the appellant has not been found to be the owner of any asset as defined in explanation 2 to section 153A of the ITA. 3. The Id. CIT(A) ought to have held that no order u/s. 153A could have been passed for the subject assessment year as it is not a 'relevant assessment year' for the purpose of section 153A of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the notice issued u/s. 153A of the ITA for the A.Y. 2008-09 is bad in law and beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer since it pertains to an assessment year which is beyond ten years from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted as per explanation 1 to section 153A(1) of the ITA. 5. The Id. CIT(A) erred in holding that incriminating material was found in the course of the search u/s. 132 of the Act. 6. The Id. CIT(A) ought to have held that the impugned order is invalid in terms of Circular no. 19/2019 as the same does not bear a Docume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e disregarded by lifting the corporate veil. 17. The Id. CIT(A) erred in holding that the under invoicing had resulted in shifting of profits outside India which were used to purchase assets abroad, and failing to appreciate that even if it is so, it is nobody's case that the Appellant is the owner of such assets. 18. Without prejudice to the above, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that even if it is assumed that the foreign companies are conduits, their tax liability could not be shifted to the Appellant, who has only sold iron ore to such companies. 19. The Id. CIT(A) erred in opining on the control and management of the foreign companies, even though the said companies were not appellants before it, nor could any determination on this count have any bearing on the appeal before it. 20. While placing reliance on the judgement of the Singapore High Court in Suit no. 821/2015, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the dispute therein was regarding ownership of foreign assets between late Mr. Anil Salgaocar and Mr. Darshan Jhaveri, and that in no circumstance could any addition on that count be made in the hands of the Appellant company.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ho was in full control of the entire transactions involved in the export of iron ore from India to China on behalf of Salgaonkar Group of Companies. The Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee company has diverted its profit by under invoicing during iron ore export since the assessee company has sold iron ore first to the companies created in British Virgin Islands on lesser rates and through them sold the iron ore to China on higher rates. And the money generated in this process was used to purchase assets by Late Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar who is the Managing Director of the assessee company has acted secretly but with knowledge of all the implications of his actions & taking into confidence of all other directors & shareholders being his own family members & Salgaonkar Group of Companies in India under his control in order to conceal the income by under invoicing of iron ore export & using so concealed income for investing in assets in various foreign jurisdictions. It is also observed by the Assessing Officer that the corroborative evidences proves beyond doubt that all the offshore entities were beneficially owned & under full control of Late Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar. Aft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period, as may be specified in the notice. the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years] referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139, (b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made 25 [and for the relevant assessment year or years]: Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years [and for the relevant assessment year or years) Provided further that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years [and for the relevant assessment year or years) referred to in this sub- section pending on the date of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if any sort of income which is escaped assessment and such income exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs, shall be assessed upto 10 years. 5.4 In the impugned case, the Ld AD has carried out assessment and addition to total Income of the appellant on account of under-invoicing, which is nothing but income of the appellant which ought to have been offered to tax in India. Thus, the income of appellant is escaped from assessment. 5.5 The appellant as contested that the alleged assets belong with Mr.Anil Saigaocar and not to appellant, is incorrect for simple reason that income has been shifted to foreign companies out of said income from which the assets were acquired. This is situation of 'Cause and Effect wherein the cause is non-offering correct income to tax in India and effect of which is creation of undeclared asset by Mr.Anil Salgaocar. 5.6 Moreover, Mr.Anil Salgaocar in capacity of director, was decision maker as he had effective control on day today matters of the appellant Company including decision making. Due to which he diverted the funds belonging to appellant, to overseas shell companies, in which investments were made as ascertained in Suit 821 of Singap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ielded incriminating material specifically related to AY 2008-09, then the extension of the reassessment period to ten years is justified. In such a scenario, the presence of such material satisfies the statutory condition for invoking reassessment for that year, irrespective of a rigid computation of the block period. The reliance placed by the appellant on the Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. decision of the Delhi High Court is misplaced and not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Ojjus judgment primarily addresses reassessments under Section 153C, which pertains to cases involving other persons", not the person searched. In contrast, the present proceedings against appellant arise directly under Section 153A, as the company itself was the subject of the search conducted on 27.07.2017. Therefore, the computation of the ten-year block in Ojjus, which hinges significantly on the date of handover of seized material under the first proviso to Section 153C(1), is irrelevant to the facts here, where the search was conducted directly on the appellant. The assessment and validity of the notice depend on the presence of relevant material for AY 2008-09 discovered du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere falling during 20th March 2020 to 31 December 2021. Said date was further extended by CBDT vide notification dated 27 February 2021 which extended the time limit to 31 September 2021. 7.3 Considering the time to be excluded for receipt of information from FT & TR and further extensions granted by CBDT due to COVID 19 Pandemic, the order passed by Ld. AO is found to be within permissible timeframe. Thus, the contention of the appellant is found to be incorrect and being rejected. Accordingly, Ground 3 of the appeal is Dismissed. 8.0 Ground 4 8.1 The appellant contended that none of the material relied upon by the officer was found at the premises of the appellant company. Initiation of assessment proceedings under section 153A in absence of any incriminating material being found from premises of the appellant is bad in law. 8.2 The appellant also contended that the draft suit 821 which is basis of carrying out the additions in the search proceedings, was found from the premises of Ms. Purnima Salgaocar, daughter of Late Mr. Anil Vasudev Salgaocar (related party of the appellant company) and actively involved in the affairs of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound from premises of registered office of appellant company or its shareholders or related parties. 8.7 It is also pertinent to mention that a company is an artificial legal entity which operates through its employees, including directors and other key personnels. In this impugned case a document pertaining to suit 821 was found from the premises of related party, which belongs to the appellant. The appellant cannot deny the content of said document just because it was found from the premises of it's related party. 8.8 The appellant contended that said suit 821 was a draft document which is a unsigned document and not maintainable. The said contention is also not accepted for the fact that High Court of Singapore has pronounced its judgment in favour of late Mr.Anil Salgaocar vide order dated 28 February 2023. This proves beyond reasonable doubt that suit called as unsigned or draft Suit 821 was actually filed and pursued in the court of law. 8.9 In view of the above, suit 821 is very well an incriminating material coupled with bank entries and other documents including various statement recorded by key personnel in salgaocar group of compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been subjected to cross-examination. However, if a witness has given directly incriminating statement and the addition in the assessment is based solely or mainly on such statement, in that eventuality it is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to allow cross- examination. Adverse evidence and material, relied upon in the order to reach the finality, should be disclosed to the assessee. But this rule is not applicable where the material or evidence used is of collateral nature. From the aforesaid discussion, it was clear that addition was not made merely on the basis of findings given apropos the secret bank accounts, disbursement made out of such accounts or on the strength of havala entries, by which the bogus commission and trading income said to have been reintroduced in the books of the assessee. Those aspects were only secondary, subordinate and were used to buttress the main matter connected with the amount of addition. The violation or otherwise of any rule of natural justice must be a matter of substance not of mere form. Natural justice should always be used for the furtherance of the cause of justice. The palladium of justice requires, that law suits be n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... d. All Indian and overseas Investment related decisions were also taken by Mr.Anil Salgaocar. e. BV Island Companies were not allowed to procure Iron Ore from any other player in the market. f. Singapore and BV Island companies were not independent and their place of effective management was controlled and decisions implemented by Anil Salgaocar from India only. g. The under invoicing has been done to invest in assets made by through BVI Companies. The cost of ore has been under invoiced to the extent that the profits have been shifted to BVI and Singapore Companies. Resulting into tax base erosion in India by way of shifting profits overseas. h. The foreign assets, ownership of which is claimed by Mr.Anil Salgaocar was acquired from trading profit of BV Island Companies. i. Mr.Anil Salgaocar was signatory to bank accounts and all payments required his approval. j. The employees of BV Island and Singapore Companies were reporting to Mr.Anil Salgaocar. k. BV Island and other intermediary companies were merely formed to record the transactions in their books of accounts. Such companies were not independently functio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound to be correct and upheld. Accordingly, Ground 6 to 19 of the appeal are dismissed. 11.0 Ground 20 The appellant contended that Ld.AO has erred in invoking interest u/s 234C of IT Act. In this regard, it is held that interest is consequential to addition carried out. Therefore, the same is being upheld. Accordingly, Ground 20 of the appeal is dismissed. 12.0 Additional Ground 1 12.1 The appellant vide letter dated 7 November 2023 has raised an additional ground of appeal wherein it has contended that order passed by Ld.AO was not bearing DIN and thus the order is in valid and nonest. 12.2 In light of principle of natural justice, the contention of the appellant are considered. In this regard, this office sought a clarification vide letter dated 9 November 2023 from the Ld. AO. 12.3 The Ld. AO filed his response vide letter dated 14 December 2023 wherein he informed office of CIT(A) that DIN was generated as per guidelines of income tax department and the same was communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 19 June 2021 ie. on very next day of passing the assessment order which is integrated par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l ground 1 of appeal is Dismissed. 13.0 Due process of law and principles of natural justice was followed during the course of appellate proceedings, with reasonable opportunities of being heard. 14.0 Accordingly, appeal of the appellant is dismissed." 9. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 10. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessee has raised various grounds before us, including legal grounds as well as grounds related to the merits of the case, however, at the time of hearing of this appeal, Ld. Counsel of the assessee requested to adjudicate ground no.3 & 4 first, since these grounds are covered in favour of assessee by judgements of Hon'ble Madras High Court, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and also by the decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal. Ld. DR raised no objection to the request of the assessee. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate ground no.3 & 4 first. 11. In this regard, we find that it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate : Provided also that the Central Government may by rules made by it and published in the Official Gazette (except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated under the second proviso), specify the class or classes of cases 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 27[and for the relevant assessment year or years] : ^27[Provided also that no notice for assessment or reassessment shall be issued by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment year or years unless- (a) the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more in the relevant assessment year or in aggregate in the relevant assessment years; (b) the income referred to in clause (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ojjus Medicare Private Limited (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Delhi) order dated 03.04.2024. (iv) RB Jewellers Private Limited vs. Union of India (2023) 157 taxmann.com 493 (Cal.) order dated 28.11.2023. (v) DCIT vs. Sai Kanaka Mahalakshmi Finance Private Limited (2023) 157 taxmann.com 816 (Visakhapatnam) order dated 30.11.2023. (vi) CIT vs. Smt. Godavari Devi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom.) order dated 27.09.1977 (relied on since no order passed by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay). 14. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative strongly opposed the contentions of the assessee and furnished a written submission in his support, which reads as under :- "The following respectful submissions are made in response to the grounds no.3 and 4 raised by the appellant challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings and assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09: 1. Validity of AY 2008-09 being beyond the 10 years block as given in the Explanation 1 to Section 153A of the Act: The appellant challenges the Ground no.3 and 4 on the ground that no order under section 153A of the Act could have been passed for the subject AY as it i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed to make consequential amendment to the provisions of said sub section. It is also proposed to define the expression 'relevant assessment year 'and assets' the form of Explanation."" According to the 2017 Memorandum, Explanation 1 was designed as an extraordinary anti avoidance tool. It empowers the Revenue to trace deeply hidden high value assets up to a decade in the past. Because of the strict 6-year cap under section 153A the Revenue was legally barred from taxing these older, newly unearthed assets during the search assessments. To the bridge this gap, the Finance Act 2017 extended the assessment window from 6 to 10 years in specific high value assets. (2) How the "Excluding Search Year "logic fits the Explanatory notes to Finance Bill 2017. The language used in the Explanatory notes for Explanation 1 acts as primary anchor that Search year is excluded from the 10-year backward reach. The notes state that block consists of standard 6 assessment years plus the relevant assessment years. It defines the relevant assessment years as those that "fall beyond six assessment years." Crucially the mathematical starting point for calcul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 3rd year would actually be considered the 4th year and therefore time barred. This would render all past settled assessments invalid. The "excluding the anchor year" methodology has legally governed section 149 and the exact same logic must protect the 10-year block under section 153A of the Act. If the phrase "from end of the relevant assessment year", is interpreted to include the anchor year within its limitation count it creates an irreconcilable conflict with the identical legislative phrasing used in section 149. The Explanatory notes to Finance Act 2021. clause 38 to amend section 149 relating to the time limit of notice states, "it is proposed to substitute the said section so as to provide that no notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the case falls under b, (b) if three years but not more than ten years from the end of the relevant assessment year...." Unlike the Finance Bill 2017, here the legislature has not used the words "beyond". Therefore the term has to be interpreted uniformly, the anchor year ie. "Search year" is st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wo conflicting definitions of Search Year defeats the purpose of a streamlined search assessment. The word 'preceding' in the section 153A(1)(b) is absolute, the year of search itself can never logically be part of those 6 preceding years and Explanation 1 cannot be read to include what the main section explicitly defines as preceding. III. The judgements of the various Hon'ble High Courts of Delhi, Madras and Gujarat on the issue of the interpretation of the Explanation 1 to Section 153A of the Act though are in favour of the assessee but not being the binding Jurisdictional High Courts, a different interpretation is open for adjudication. In this respect the reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhavin Kishorebhai Zinzuwadia vs ACIT on 2/12/2024 in special civil application no.22170 of 2019. Though the decision is with respect to the provisions of Section 153C of the Act, where the block. of 10 years calculation has been accepted excluding the year in which the incriminating material is received by the AO of the other person. Para 34 of the order read, We are therefore of the opinion that the impugned notices....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etation suggesting two different method violates the principles of statutory interpretation and render the Search mechanism unworkable. Thus, the assessment order passed is valid both on facts and law. We respectfully pray that the objections raised by the appellant in Grounds no.3 and 4 may be rejected, and the validity of the reassessment and assessment order may be upheld." 15. In rejoinder, Ld. counsel of the assessee also furnished written submission, which reads as under :- "1. This has reference to the captioned appeals which were heard by the Hon'ble Bench on 11th June 2026. 2. Grounds 3 and 4 challenge the validity of the impugned assessment order which relates to the assessment year 2008-09 on the ground that the said assessment year is beyond the purview of section 153A of the Act inasmuch as it is not a relevant assessment year as defined in Explanation 1 thereto. 3. It is submitted that the question which arises for consideration as to the anchor point for the determination of 'relevant assessment years for the purpose of section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and its interplay with the ancho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is regard, it is submitted that the term "assessment year" is defined in clause (9) of section 2 of the Act to mean a period of 12 months commencing on the first day of April. In the facts of the present case, the assessment year relevant to the previous year of search is A.Y. 2018-19. It cannot be gainsaid that the first day of the assessment year is 1st April, 2018 and the end of the assessment year is 31st March, 2019. Such being the position, it is submitted that the argument that the end of the assessment year 2018-19 must somehow be construed as 1st April, 2018 cannot be countenanced. 8. Reliance has also been placed by the Department on the Notes on Clauses to the Finance Bill, 2017 to argue that determination of assessment years and relevant assessment years must both start from the same point in time. It is submitted that the Notes on Clauses to the Finance Bill, 2017, as reproduced on page 1 of the Ld. CIT(DR)'s written submission use the words "but not beyond ten assessment years from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted". It may be observed that the language employed in the Notes on Clauses to the Finance Bill is ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 149 of the Act, as the said provision also requires exclusion of the relevant assessment year. In this regard, it is submitted that the manner in which the High Courts have interpreted the expression "end of the assessment year" does not result in any conflict with the interpretation of section 149 of the Act. In fact, this interpretation makes for a harmonious reading of the two provisions. Both Explanation 1 to section 153A and section 149 use the expression "from the end of the relevant assessment year". The difference between the two, however, lies in the fact that Explanation 1 to section 153A is backward-looking, whereas section 149 is forward-looking. Therefore, the determination of the relevant assessment years' under Explanation 1 to section 153A will start from 31st March 2019 and go back 10 years. Similarly, the determination of the three years under section 149 will also start from 31st March 2019 and go forward three years, with 31 March, 2019 acting as the anchor point in the both calculations. This would mean that 10 years counted backwards from 31st March 2019, which can be the subject matter of section 153A, will end with assessment year 2009- 10, and thre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 15. Lastly, reliance has been placed by the learned CIT (DR) on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian National Congress v. DCIT (2024) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhavin Kishorebhai Zinzuwadia v. ACIT (2024). 16.lt is submitted that neither of the two judgments has dealt with the issue under consideration, namely, whether or not there are different anchor points for the six assessment years and the four relevant assessment years. 17.In Indian National Congress, a search took place on certain individuals in April 2019 pursuant to which satisfaction notes were recorded in 2023 and notices under section 153C of the Act were issued for the six-year block comprising assessment years 2014-15 to 2020-21. Notices for the first three years, i.e., assessment years 2014- 15, 2015-16, and 2016-17, were challenged by way of a writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that, as the Assessing Officer had not expressly invoked the first proviso to section 153A of the Act, he could not have gone beyond six assessment years. It was further argued that no separate satisfaction notes were recorded for ea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee was recorded on 23rd October, 2019 (paras 4 and 5). In that case also, the arguments of the assessee hinged on the applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Knitwears (supra), and also on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CII v. Jasjit Singh (2023) 458 ITR 437. Therefore, the question regarding the determination of the anchor point for the purpose of the relevant assessment years vis-à-vis its determination for the six assessment years, which is the subject matter of consideration in the present appeals, was not present before the Court at all. Consequently, no such question of law was framed by the High Court. In the said case, while the High Court did compute ten years as a block excluding the assessment year of search, the same was not in answer to the question being considered herein. 19. Subsequently, when this very question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Jayantibhai Karamshibhai (supra), the High Court agreed with the interpretation put forth by the assessee that the anchor point for the six assessment years and the four relevant assessment years is differ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act. It reads as under : "For the purposes 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." The above explanation assigns a particular meaning to the expression "relevant assessment year". It precedes the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted. The search was conducted on 10.04.2018. According to Section 2(34) of the Act, "previous year" means the previous year as defined in Section 3. As per Section 3, for the purposes of the Act, "previous year" means the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year." "Assessment year" has been defined in Section 2(9) as the period of twelve months commencing on the 1st day of April every year. As per Section 3(21) of the General Clauses Act, "financial year' shall mean the year commencing on the 1st day of April. Since the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would be 7 2012-13 8 2011-12 9 2010-11 10 2009-10 Of course, this extended period would be covered only subject to certain conditions. In the case on hand, the only dispute is as to how the period of ten years is to be computed. 5.The learned standing counsel wants me to look at the explanatory notes (Para 80.4) to Finance Act 2017 (CBDT's Circular No.2/2018 in F.No.370142/15/2017-TPL dated 15.02.2018) to understand Explanation-I. It reads as under : "However, in order to protect the interest of the revenue in cases where tangible evidence(s) are found during a search or seizure operation (including Section 132A cases) and the same is represented in the form of undisclosed investment in any asset, section 153A of the Income Tax Act relating to search assessments has been amended to provide that notice under the said section can be issued for an assessment year or years beyond the sixth assessment year already provided up to the tenth assessment year." The learned standing counsel would point out that in the provision, there are clearly two limbs. The first limb says that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he comes within the purview of exemption. 8.In fact, I am prepared to sail along with the learned standing counsel and hold that if there is any ambiguity while construing a provision meant for rooting out or investigating evasion of tax, it must be resolved in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Jurisprudentially speaking, the very object of law is to lay down norms for general behavior and prescribe sanction to ensure their compliance. Unless sanction is strictly enforced, it will incentivise deviation. Even in criminal law, while when it comes to substantive offences, retrospective application is forbidden, contrary approach is adopted in matters of procedure. I agree with the submission that Section 153 A of the Income Tax Act is intended to unearth tax evasion. But I can endorse the stand of the respondent as regards computation of the period of ten years only if there is ambiguity or obscurity in Explanation-I. To me, there is absolutely no ambiguity. 9.Explanation-I is clear as to the manner of computation of the ten assessment years. It clearly and firmly fixes the starting point. It is the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Norman Doidge. It implies that contrary to settled wisdom, even brain structure can be changed. But not so when it comes to a provision in a taxing statute that is free of ambiguity. Such a provision cannot be elastically construed. 11.One other contention urged by the standing counsel has to be dealt with. It is pointed out that the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction at the notice stage. Since the petitioner has demonstrated that the subject assessment year lies beyond the ambit of the provision, the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. Once lack of jurisdiction has been established, the maintainability of the writ petition cannot be in doubt. 12.The notice impugned in the writ petition is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." 17. Apart from above judgement, Ld. counsel of the assessee also placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of Jayantibhai Karamshibhai Maniya vs ITO (2026) 182 taxman 493 (Guj.) wherein Hon'ble Gujarat High Court followed the judgement passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of A. R. Saiful....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court passed in the case of R.B. Jewellers (P.) Ltd. vs. UOI in WPO No.438 of 2021 order dated 28.11.2023 wherein Hon'ble Calcutta High Court followed the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) and also followed the judgement passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of A. R. Saifulla vs. ACIT (supra) and held that the impugned proceedings u/s 153A of the IT Act relating to assessment year 2010-11 on the basis of search and seizure dated 13.04.2019 is not sustainable in law and accordingly allowed the petition filed by the assessee on both the grounds i.e. regarding absence of incriminating material and also on the ground of the proceedings being time barred in the light of judgement of A.R. Saifulla vs. ACIT (supra). 20. We further find that the assessee has also placed reliance on coordinate bench decision passed in the case of DCIT vs. Sai Kanaka Mahalakshami Finance Private Ltd. (2023) 157 Taxmann.com 816 order dated 30-11-2023 wherein the Tribunal under identical facts by relying on the judgement of A. R. Saifulla vs ACIT (supra) has dismissed the appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made." From the bare reading of the above provisions we find that the Statute has prescribed a different yardstick for the computation of six years in the case of search assessments for the purpose of section 153A(1)(b) and a different yardstick in the computation of Ten years, for the purpose of fourth proviso. Accordingly, we find that the Ld. AO has jurisdiction upto the AY 2009-10 in the instant case. From the reliance placed by the Ld. AR in the case of A.R. Saifulla (supra) we find it relevant to extract the relevant paragraphs from the said order as under: "8. In fact, I am prepared to sail along with the learned standing counsel and hold that if there is any ambiguity while construing a provision meant for rooting out or investigating evasion of tax, it must be resolved in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Jurisprudentially speaking, the very object of law is to lay down norms for general behavior and prescribe sanction to ensure their compliance. Unless sanction is strictly enforced, it will incentivise deviation. Even in criminal law, while when it com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cluded. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 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 wisdom, even brain structure can be changed. But not so when it comes to a provision in a taxing statute that is free of ambiguity. Such a provision cannot be elastically construed. 11. One other contention urged by the standing counsel has to be dealt with. It is pointed out that the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction at the notice stage. Since the petitioner has demonstrated that the subject a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court (supra) and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court (supra) and also following the coordinate bench decision passed in the case of DCIT vs Sai Kanaka Mahalakshami Finance Private Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 153A of the IT Act for the impugned Assessment Year 2008-09, since the search was conducted on 27-07-2017 which falls in assessment year 2018-19 & in view of above judgements the anchor point for determination of ten assessment years will commence from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted, therefore first year in the instant case will be Assessment Year 2018-19 & determination of relevant assessment year will be as follows :- Year 1 A.Y. 2018-19 Year 2 A.Y. 2017-18 Year 3 A.Y. 2016-17 Year 4 A.Y. 2015-16 Year 5 A.Y. 2014-15 Year 6 A.Y. 2013-14 Year 7 A.Y. 2012-13 Year 8 A.Y. 2011-12 Year 9 A.Y. 2010-11 Year 10 A.Y. 2009-10 22. From the perusal of above chart, it is apparent that the assessment year 2008-09 is not falling in the relevant assessment year & is adm....