TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as per section 153(1), the AO can issue the notice for the previous year in which search is conducted (for the purpose of Section 153C the document is handed over) and six assessment years preceding such assessment year. Therefore, issue of notice u/s 153C issued by the Revenue cannot be sustained on both the above counts, i.e., it is legally not valid as conditions laid down u/s 153C has not been fulfilled and it is barred by limitation. In view of the above, we quash the notice issue du/s 153C and consequently, the assessment completed in pursuance to such notice, is also quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 3037/Del/2013, I T A N o . 3695/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2015 - Sh. N. K. Saini And Sh. George George K., JJ. For The Appellant : Sh. Sachin Jain Rajesh Sharma, CA For The Respondent : Smt. A. Misra, CIT DR ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These cross appeals by the assessee and the department are directed against the order dated 30.03.2013 of ld. CIT(A)- XXXI, New Delhi. 2. First we will deal with appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3037/Del/2013. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. That under the facts and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted a proposal for centralization of the case. Consequent upon centralization of the case a notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 13.10.2009 to the assessee calling for return of income. The assessee furnished a return of income on 23.03.2010 declaring total income of ₹ 3,83,39,654/- which included income from house property, business and Long Term Capital Gain of ₹ 3,78,13,289/-. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 10.09.2010. Later on, a notice u/s 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act at an income of ₹ 14,10,20,905/-by making the various additions. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who allowed a part relief to the assessee and sustained certain additions. 6. Now assessee is in appeal against the sustained addition and department is aggrieved against the relief allowed to the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee vide order dated 05.11.2014 in ITA Nos. 1436/Del/2012 and 1707/Del/2012 for the assessment year 2009-10 in the case of Shri Jasjit Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for the assessment year under consideration should have been framed u/s 153C read with 143(3) of the I.T. Act. In support the above cited decisions were relied upon by the ld. AR. 14. The contention of the ld. CIT(DR) on the contrary remained that the reference of proviso 1 of section 153C is only in relation to the second proviso to sub-section 1 of section 153A which speaks about the abatement of the pending proceedings of six assessment years and not regarding the assessment of the preceding six assessment years which will be the same as in section 153A as well as in section 153C of the Act. In this regard she placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of SSP Aviation Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra). 15. We find that an identical issue has been decided by Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DSL Properties P. Ltd. (supra) in favour of the assessee accepting the similar contention of the assessee. Similar view has been expressed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of V.K. Fiscal (supra) holding that the date of receiving of the seized documents would become the date of search and six years period would ITA Nos. 1436 1707/D/2012 Jasj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice for assessment or reassessment of total six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to previous year in which search is conducted. As per proviso to section 153C, the date of search is to be substituted by the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized by the AO having jurisdiction over such other person. Ld. DR has stated that since the AO of the person searched and the AO of such other person was the same, no handing over or taking over of the document was required. That section 153C(1) and its proviso have to be read together in a harmonious manner. While interpreting section 153C, we have already held that for initiating valid jurisdiction u/s 153C, even if the AO of the person searched and t he AO of such other person is the same, he has to first record the satisfaction in the file of the person searched and thereafter, such note alongwith the seized document/books of account is to be placed in the file of such other person. The date on which this exercise is done would be considered as the date of receiving the books of account or document by the AO having jurisdiction over such other person. Though while examining the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
