TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ani Mishra, AR, Sh. Naveen Kumar, AR For the Respondent : Shri Zahid Parvez, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 05.03.2019, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur (in short ld. Commissioner ) u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. Brief facts, relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal, are that a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Revenue Department on dated 15.10.2013 in the case of Tyagi Group of cases, on the basis of which the alleged satisfaction was recorded in the case of Assessee on dated 12.08.2015 for initia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment or reassessment in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year, in which such search is conducted or requisition made or satisfaction note is prepared which allegedly in the case of Assessee on dated 12.08.2015 for initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act, being the date of receiving the books of account or documents or asset seized, therefore the instant case as pertains to AY 2014-15 also falls within 6 years. In support of its contention, ld. AR of the Assessee relied upon various judgments, out of which we are referring only one by the Hon ble Tribunal in ITA No. 4051 4052/Del/2017, in the case of ACIT vs. Ankit Nivesh, wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be treated as the date of handing over of material and therefore the six AYs preceding the year of the search, for which the assessment was proposed to be reopened, should beA.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y. 2014-15. 12. Consequently the notice u/s. 153C(1) could have been issued for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2014-15. Prior to the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2017 the date on which the Assessing Officer of the person other than the one searched assumes the possession of the seized assets would be the relevant date for applying the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. 13. In the following judgments, the Hon ble Delhi High Court have clearly held that the provisions of six years would have to be counted from the year in which satis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e previous year in which the search was conducted. If this interpretation as canvassed by the Revenue is accepted, it would mean that whereas in case of a person searched, assessments in relation to six previous years preceding the year in which the search takes place can be reopened but in case of any other person, who is not searched but his assets are seized from the searched person, the period for which the assessments could be reopened would be much beyond the period of six years. This is so because the date of handing over of assets/documents of a person, other than the searched person, to the AO would be subsequent to the date of the search. This, in our view, would be contrary to the scheme of Section 153C (1) of the Act, which con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Satisfaction Note is 21st July, 2014 and the notice under Section 153C of the Act was issued on 23rd July2014. The previous six AYs would therefore be from AY 2009-10 to AY 2014-15. This would therefore not include AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09. The decision in RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra) is also an authority for the proposition that for the proceedings under Section 153C to be valid, there had to be a satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the searched person. The Court also stated that - This position again stands settled by the decision in RRI Securities Ltd (supra). The fact that the Revenue's SLP against the said decision is pending in the Supreme Court does not make a difference sine the operation of the said decision has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt as cited by the ld. Counsel. Thus, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court we hold that is a terminal date for determining of six preceding assessment years for the purpose of Section 153C r.w.s. 153A would be the date of handing over the documents or the dated of recording of the satisfaction. Admittedly, the six preceding assessment years in the case of the assessee is from Assessment Year 2009-10 and ending on 2014-15. Accordingly, we hold that ld. CIT (A) was correct in law that no assessment u/s.153C was made in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 and is barred by limitation. 15. Similarly in Assessment Year 2008-09 also we need the same fate which is also beyond the limitation period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
