9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned notice] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] seeking to reopen the assessment in respect of the Assessment Year [AY] 2015-16. 3. The petitioner's case is that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of the limitation. 4. In the present case, the petitioner had filed its return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 28.09.2015 declaring the income of Rs. 29,74,570/-. The impugned notice indicates that a search was conducted on 02.03.2022 under Section 132 of the Act in case of Gaur Group and related entities. It is alleged that during the course of the said search, incriminating information pertaining to the petitioner was found. Based on the said material, the Assessing Officer [AO] issued the impugned notice on 28.03.2025. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 succeed for the following reasons. It is an undisputed fact that the proceedings under Section 148 commenced on the basis of the impugned notice dated 30 March 2023. This date would be of seminal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 undertaken and which would lead to the ascertainment of the AY relevant to the previous year of search. The block of six AYs' would consequently be those which immediately precede the AY relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-year block period No. of years AY 2025-26 1 AY 2024-25 2 AY 2023-24 3 AY 2022-23 4 AY 2021-22 5 AY 2020-21 6 AY 2019-20 7 AY 2018-19 8 AY 2017-18 9 AY 2016-17 10 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 Pankaj Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi & Anr.: Neutral Citation : 2025:DHC:157-DB. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue concurs with the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
