TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court held that the person, other than the searched person, would be gravely prejudiced if the papers were to be handed over to the jurisdictional assessing officer of such person after about four years. In the case at hand, the search in the premises of Mr. Thirumalaivasan was carried out on 11.10.2012, whereas the satisfaction note was recorded only on 27.03.2019. It is also significant to notice that the assessing officer of the searched person and the petitioner were the same and the recording of satisfaction about seven years after search is unjustified. If the limitation period of six years is reckoned from the date on which satisfaction was recorded, which falls within financial year 2018-2019 or assessment year 2019-2020, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after. Eventually, the impugned assessment orders were issued in December 2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned assessment orders are barred by limitation and that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax 14 v. Jasjit Singh, judgment dated 26.09.2023 in SLP(C) No.6644/2016 and connected cases (Jasjit Singh) . By referring to paragraph 4 of the said judgment, he points out that the contentions of the assessee and revenue were noticed and recorded therein. By relying on paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof, learned counsel contended that the Supreme Court clarified that the proviso does not deal only with the question of abatement but also fixes the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hstanding anything contained in Section 153, the Assessing Officer shall make an order of assessment or reassessment,- (a) in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A, within a period of twenty one months from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A was executed; (b) in respect of each assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A, within a period of twenty one months from the end of the financial year in which the last of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person [ for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and ] for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A]:] [ Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to [sub-section (1)] of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Aviation adopted, the A.O. seized of the materials of the search party, under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessing officer of the searched person and the petitioner were the same and the recording of satisfaction about seven years after search is unjustified. If the limitation period of six years is reckoned from the date on which satisfaction was recorded, which falls within financial year 2018-2019 or assessment year 2019-2020, the respondent could only have reached back up to assessment year 2013-2014. Therefore, the proceedings in respect of both these assessment years are undoubtedly barred by limitation. It should also be noticed that the periods specified in Section 153B for completion of assessment had also lapsed. 8. For reasons set out above, the impugned assessment orders are quashed as being barred by limitation. W.P.Nos.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
