TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings were conducted, in respect of the main assessee u/s 132 - HELD THAT:- As on a plain interpretation of Section 153C(1) that the Parliamentary intent to enact the proviso was to cater not merely to the question of abatement but also with regard to the date from which the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of which the returns were to be filed by the third party (whose premises are not searched and in respect of whom the specific provision u/s 153-C was enacted. The revenue argued that the proviso [to Section 153(c)(1)] is confined in its application to the question of abatement. This Court is of the opinion that the revenue s argument is insubstantial and without merit. It is quite plausible that without the kind of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Anmol Chandan, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.R. Manjani, Adv., Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Kailash J. Kashyap, Adv., Mr. K. L. Janjani, AOR, Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR, Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ajay Vohra, Adv., Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv., Mr. Udit Naresh, Adv. And Mr. Akash Shukla, Adv. JUDGMENT 1. Delay condoned in SLP(C) Dy. No. 30718 of 2023 and all connected petitions. 2. Special leave granted. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals were heard. 3. In this batch of appeals the revenue questions four sets of orders of the Delhi High Court, dismissing its appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as IT Act ). Though the facts in each appeal diffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on behalf of the revenue by Ms. Bagchi, learned counsel that the impugned order is erroneous because the date referred under proviso to Section 153(1) is relatable to the second proviso to Section 153A, only as far as it concerns abatement. The revenue relied upon the ruling of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, reported as SSP Aviation Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2012) 346 ITR 177. 7. Sections 153A and Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent they are relevant are extracted below:- 153A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate: . 153C.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt assessment year or years as referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated. 8. In SSP Aviation (supra) the High Court inter alia reasoned as follows:- 14. Now there can be a situation when during the search conducted on one person under Section 132, some documents or valuable assets or books of account belonging to some other person, in whose case the search is not conducted, may be found. In such case, the Assessing Officer has to first be satisfied under Section 153C, which provides for the assessment of income of any other person, i.e., any other person who is not covered by the search, that the books of account or other valuable article or document belongs to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eference to such date. 9. It is evident on a plain interpretation of Section 153C(1) that the Parliamentary intent to enact the proviso was to cater not merely to the question of abatement but also with regard to the date from which the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of which the returns were to be filed by the third party (whose premises are not searched and in respect of whom the specific provision under Section 153-C was enacted. The revenue argued that the proviso [to Section 153(c)(1)] is confined in its application to the question of abatement. 10. This Court is of the opinion that the revenue s argument is insubstantial and without merit. It is quite plausible that without the kind of interpretation which SSP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
