9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... questioned the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding by raising five grounds as under: - "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) was justified in holding that block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized, by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person and not from the date of initiation of search by relying on First Proviso to Section 153C, even when this Proviso specifically deals only with the abatement of proceedings (as referred to second proviso of Section 153A) and does not deal with the calculation of block periods? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 6 years for reopening of the assessments in case of the person searched and the other person? 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or all grounds of appeal at any time before and during the course of hearing." 3. The issue in dispute here is purely legal in nature challenging the impugned appellate order quashing the assessment order reads as under: "4. I have considered the material con record including written submission of the AR of the appellant filed in course of appellate proceedings. I have also perused the assessment order u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer in the present appeal the appellant has raised following grounds of appeal and additional ground of appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Appellant submitted that the period of six assessment years as per the decision of Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi mean six years prior to the AY in which the satisfaction note u/s 153C was recorded by the concerned Assessing Officer. The satisfaction note in the instant case was recorded by the Assessing Officer on 20.09.2018 i.e. in the F.Y. 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20 therefore six years period as referred in See 153C(1) should have been from AY 2013-14 to 2018-19. The appellant has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. M/s RRJ Securities Pvt. Ltd and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GIT VS Jasjit Singh. 4.1.4 The submission of the appellant and the judicial pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer (hereinafter, the 'AO') having jurisdiction over the searched person passed on the said information to the AO of the respondent assessee in September, 2018. Thereafter, the AO of the respondent assessee initiated proceedings under section 153C of the Act on 20.09.2018. The consequential assessment was completed at income of Rs. 2,47,60,320/- as against the returned income of Rs. 60,320/-. The AO made addition of Rs. 2,47,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who allowed the appeal as above. Now, the Revenue is before us in this appeal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue involved herein is squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
