2025 (7) TMI 249 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153C - Period of limitation - Assessment falling beyond the period of 6 years - HELD THAT - The notice u/s 153C of the Act is issued to the assessee on 18-9-2014 and hence as per the decision in the case of Jasjit Singh reported 2023 (10) TMI 572 - SUPREME COURT the date of search qua the assessee becomes 18-9-2014 relevant to assessment year 2015-16. Accordingly the AY 2008-09 falls beyond the period of 6 years and hence no assessment could be framed u/s 153C of the Act for the AY 2008-09 in the case of the assessee. Hence the entire assessment framed is beyond jurisdiction and is hereby quashed. Assessment u/s 153A - whether any addition could be made in the absence of any incriminating materials found during the course of search in the case of completed assessments in the hands of the assessee? - In the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search qua the additions/ disallowances made by AO in respect of unabated assessments those additions/disallowances would have no legs to stand as held in the case of Abhishar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT . Respectfully following the said decision the additions/ disallowances made in the assessments framed for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13 are hereby deleted. Since relief is granted to the assessee on this legal issue the adjudication of other factual and legal grounds raised by the assessee becomes academic in nature and they are left open. Accordingly the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13 are hereby allowed. AO justification in framing the assessment u/s 143(3) instead of section 153C - Admittedly notice under section 153C of the Act stood issued to the assessee on 18-9-2014. Hence the date of search qua the assessee becomes 18-9-2014 in view of the decision in the case of CIT vs Jasjit Singh 2023 (10) TMI 572 - SUPREME COURT Accordingly assessment should be framed for the Assessment Year 2013-14 u/s 153C of the Act as it falls within the prescribed period of 6 years prior to the year in which search has been conducted qua the assessee. Since the assessment has been framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act instead of section 153C of the Act the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. Appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals pertain primarily to the validity and jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) in framing assessments under specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation. The issues include:

• Whether the AO had jurisdiction to frame assessments for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act, given the date of search and the prescribed limitation period.
• Whether additions or disallowances made in assessments for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 under section 153A of the Act, in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, are sustainable.
• Whether the assessment for AY 2013-14 framed under section 143(3) instead of section 153C of the Act is valid, considering the date of search and limitation period.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of AO to frame assessment for AY 2008-09 under section 153C

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 153C of the Income Tax Act empowers the AO to assess income of a person other than the one searched, where documents relating to such person are found during a search under section 132. The limitation period for such assessments is six years from the date of search. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs Jasjit Singh (reported in 155 taxmann.com 155 (SC)) clarified that the date of search for the assessee, in cases where a notice under section 153C is issued, is the date of issuance of the notice under section 153C, not the date of search of the original person searched.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the search and seizure operation under section 132(1) was conducted on 9-5-2012 in respect of the SRS group, but the notice under section 153C was issued to the assessee only on 18-9-2014. Following the Supreme Court ruling in CIT vs Jasjit Singh, the date of search qua the assessee is 18-9-2014. Consequently, the limitation period for framing assessment under section 153C for the assessee starts from this date.

Key evidence and findings: The assessment for AY 2008-09 was framed on 26-3-2015, which is beyond six years from the date of search qua the assessee (18-9-2014). Hence, the assessment is barred by limitation.

Application of law to facts: Since AY 2008-09 falls outside the six-year period from the date of search (18-9-2014), the AO lacked jurisdiction to frame the assessment under section 153C. The assessment framed under section 153A read with section 143(3) is therefore invalid.

Treatment of competing arguments: Although the assessee raised multiple grounds, the Tribunal held that the jurisdictional issue goes to the root of the matter, rendering other grounds academic.

Conclusion: The assessment for AY 2008-09 framed under section 153C is quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue 2: Validity of additions/disallowances in assessments for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 under section 153A in absence of incriminating material

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 153A allows assessment or reassessment where a search has been conducted. However, additions based on incriminating material found during the search are necessary to sustain such assessments. The Supreme Court in Abhishar Buildwell Pvt Ltd (reported in 454 ITR 212 (SC)) held that additions in unabated assessments without incriminating material found during search cannot stand.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13, the AO had completed original scrutiny assessments under section 143(3) before issuance of notice under section 153C. The notice under section 153C was issued on 18-9-2014, which is the date of search qua the assessee. Since no incriminating material relating to the assessee was found during the search of the SRS group, and no seized documents were referenced to justify the additions or disallowances, these additions lacked a legal basis.

Key evidence and findings: The additions pertained to dividend income, disallowance of freight charges, and expenses under section 14A. The AO's order did not reference any incriminating material or seized documents to support these additions.

Application of law to facts: Given the absence of incriminating material and that the assessments were already completed prior to the search qua the assessee, the additions/disallowances made under section 153A are unsustainable.

Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue did not produce any evidence of incriminating material or seized documents to uphold the additions. The Tribunal, therefore, followed the binding precedent in Abhishar Buildwell Pvt Ltd.

Conclusion: The additions and disallowances made in AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 assessments are deleted and the appeals allowed.

Issue 3: Validity of assessment for AY 2013-14 framed under section 143(3) instead of section 153C

Relevant legal framework and precedents: As per section 153C, assessments relating to documents found during search must be framed under that section within the prescribed limitation period. The Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs Jasjit Singh clarifies that the date of search for the assessee is the date of issuance of notice under section 153C.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the notice under section 153C was issued on 18-9-2014, making this the date of search for the assessee. AY 2013-14 falls within the six-year limitation period from this date. However, the AO framed the assessment under section 143(3) instead of section 153C.

Key evidence and findings: The assessment framed under section 143(3) is therefore procedurally incorrect.

Application of law to facts: Since the assessment should have been framed under section 153C, framing it under section 143(3) is invalid and liable to be quashed.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal did not delve into other grounds as the jurisdictional defect was dispositive.

Conclusion: The assessment for AY 2013-14 framed under section 143(3) is quashed; the appeal is allowed.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal established the following key principles and determinations:

"The date of search qua the assessee becomes the date of issuance of notice under section 153C of the Act and not the date of search of the original person searched."

"Assessment under section 153C can only be framed within six years from the date of search qua the assessee."

"Additions or disallowances made in unabated assessments without any incriminating material found during the course of search are unsustainable."

"Framing of assessment under section 143(3) instead of section 153C in cases where the latter is applicable is invalid."

On the facts, the Tribunal held:

• The assessment for AY 2008-09 framed under section 153C is beyond limitation and quashed.
• The additions/disallowances in AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 framed under section 153A without incriminating material are deleted.
• The assessment for AY 2013-14 framed under section 143(3) instead of section 153C is quashed.
• All appeals of the assessee are allowed on these jurisdictional and legal grounds.