9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [AY] 2015-16. 2. The petitioner's case is that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of the limitation. 3. In the present case, the petitioner had filed its return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 25.09.2025 declaring the income of Rs. 89,72,493/-. On 02.03.2022, a search was conducted under Section 132 of the Act at the premises of persons belonging to the Gaur Group. Based on the certain material found during the said search, the Assessing Officer [AO] issued the impugned notice on 29.08.2024. 4. Although the provisions of Section 153C of the Act are inapplicable in respect of searches conducted after 31.03.2021, it is relevant to consider whether a notice under Section 153C of the Act could be issued for the relevant A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which stood specified in Sections 149, 153A and 153C as they stood prior to the commencement of Finance Act, 2021. 9. Thus, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in relation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to meet the foundational tests as specified in the First Proviso to Section 149 (1). A reassessment action would thus have to not only satisfy the time frames constructed in terms of Section 149, but in a relevant case and which is concerned with a search, also those which would be applicable by virtue of the provisions of Section 153A and 153C. 10. Undisputedly, and if the validity of the reassessment were to be tested on the anvil of Section 153C, the petitioner would be entitled to succ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the nonsearched person. The shift of the relevant date in the case of a non-searched person being regulated by the First Proviso of Section 153C (1) is an issue which is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively settled by virtue of the decisions of this Court in SSP Aviation and RRJ Securities as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasjit Singh. The aforesaid legal position also stood reiterated by the Supreme Court in Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia. The submission of the respondents, therefore, that the block periods would have to be reckoned with reference to the date of search can neither be countenanced nor accepted. E. The reckoning of the six AYs' would require one to firstly identify the FY in which the search was undertak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which the impugned notice under Section 148 was issued. A tabular statement setting out the block of ten years as set out in the petition is reproduced below: Computation of ten-year block period No. of years 2025-26 1 2024-25 2 2023-24 3 2022-23 4 2021-22 5 2020-21 6 2019-20 7 2018-19 8 2017-18 9 2016-17 10 BAR BY LIMITATION 2015-16 11 9. Concededly, the issue involved in the present case is covered by the earlier decisions of this court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others: Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC:4554-DB, KAD Housing Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6, Delhi : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:8214-DB and Panka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
