9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1995 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 254 - validity of Assessment u/s 153C - six assessment years for which assessments/reassessments could be made u/s 153C - contention was raised by the revenue before Hon ble Delhi high court that the relevant six assessment years would be the assessment years prior to the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted - HELD THAT - In the present case, although the search has taken place on 25.10.2010 but the satisfaction note was recorded on 14.12.2012, (relevant to A. Y. 2013 14) by the AO of the assessee in his capacity of AO of this assessee and not in the capacity of the AO of the searched person although the AO is same of this assessee and of the searched person as noted by the tribunal in case of Shri Gali Janardan Reddy 2016 (11) TMI 530 - ITAT BANGALORE and Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna 2016 (10) TMI 1378 - ITAT BANGALORE Hence, relevant six years in these two cases for section 153A/153C are A. Y. 2007 08 to 2012 13. Hence, the present assessment year 2011 12 is also covered by section 153A/153C and therefore, there is no apparent mistake in these two tribunal orders. Revenue raised ground that the issue of the period of six assessment years for the purpose of section 153C of the Act is a fresh ground raised by the learned AR of the assessee raised in the course of hearing of the M. P - We find that this is not a fresh ground raised by assessee in the course of hearing of the M. P. In fact, this is the ground raised by the revenue in these M. Ps. that the present year cannot be a part of six years covered u/s 153C and in reply thereto, assessee has placed reliance on the judgment of RRJ Securities Limited ( 2015 (11) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT and it was contended that as per this judgment, the present assessment year 2011 12 is also covered by section 153A/153C and therefore, there is no apparent mistake in these two tribunal orders. Hence, this contention is also not rendering any help to the revenue. Thus we hold that the present assessment year 2011 12 is also covered by section 153A/153C in the facts of the present case and therefore, there is no apparent mistake in these two tribunal orders.
Issues Involved:
1. Apparent mistakes in tribunal orders regarding the applicability of Section 153A and 153C for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Whether the assessment year 2011-12 should be included in the six assessment years covered under Section 153A/153C. 3. The relevance of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 153C. 4. The validity of the reliance on judgments by the Delhi High Court in similar cases. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Apparent Mistakes in Tribunal Orders: The revenue filed two Miscellaneous Petitions (M.Ps) alleging apparent mistakes in tribunal orders for two connected assessees. The primary contention was that for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12, no proceedings could be initiated under Section 153A or 153C because it was the financial year in which the search was conducted. The tribunal had previously quashed the assessment orders for AY 2011-12 along with the orders for six preceding years due to the AO's failure to record satisfaction under Section 153C in his capacity as the AO of the searched person. 2. Inclusion of Assessment Year 2011-12 in Six Assessment Years: The revenue argued that the assessment for AY 2011-12 was completed under Section 144 read with Section 153D, not under Section 153C, and thus setting aside the assessment on the grounds of non-recording of satisfaction under Section 153C was an apparent mistake. The revenue relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in SSP Aviation Ltd., which emphasized that the six assessment years should be computed from the date of search, excluding the year of search itself. 3. Satisfaction Recorded by the AO: The revenue asserted that the AO had recorded the necessary satisfaction under Section 153C for AYs 2005-06 to 2010-11, and the assessment for AY 2011-12 was a regular assessment. Thus, the tribunal's decision to set aside the assessment for AY 2011-12 was erroneous. The revenue further argued that the period of six assessment years should be the same for both Sections 153A and 153C, and the AO's satisfaction should be based on the date of receiving the seized documents or assets. 4. Reliance on Delhi High Court Judgments: The assessee's representative relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment in CIT vs. RRJ Securities Limited, which stated that the six assessment years for which assessments/reassessments could be made under Section 153C should be construed with reference to the date of handing over of assets/documents to the AO of the assessee. The tribunal found this judgment more relevant as it was a later judgment and had considered the earlier judgment in SSP Aviation Ltd. The tribunal concluded that the relevant six years for Section 153A/153C in the present case were AYs 2007-08 to 2012-13, making AY 2011-12 also covered by Section 153A/153C. Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed the revenue's M.Ps, holding that there was no apparent mistake in the tribunal orders. The tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment in CIT vs. RRJ Securities Limited, which clarified that the six assessment years should be reckoned from the date of recording satisfaction by the AO. Hence, the assessment year 2011-12 was rightly included within the scope of Section 153A/153C, and the tribunal's previous orders were upheld. The tribunal found no merit in the revenue's petitions and dismissed them accordingly.
|
