2020 (2) TMI 1044 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153C - assessment beyond four years - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that search was conducted on 20.01.2014 in the cases of M/s Mapsa Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Ors. and satisfaction u/s 153C was recorded on 23.02.2016 that the documents pertaining to assessee have been seized during the course of search. The AO, accordingly, issued notice u/s 153C on 23.02.2016. The issue is, therefore, covered by judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd. 2015 (11) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT as is considered by the CIT(A) in the impugned order. The six assessment years for which assessments/reassessments could be made u/s 153C of the Act would also have to be construed with reference to the date of handing over of the assets/documents to the AO of the assessee i.e. 23.02.2016. Therefore, the relevant assessment years for initiating proceedings u/s 153C would be assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16. Therefore, the assessment years under appeal i.e. 2008-09 2009-10 would be beyond the period of six years. . In view of the above, assessment for current AY were outside the scope of Section 153C of the Act and the AO had no jurisdiction to make an assessment of the Assessee s income for the year in question. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 153C.
2. Validity of the assessment orders for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 under Section 153C.
3. Applicability of the six-year limitation period for assessment under Section 153C.
4. Reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 153C:
The core issue was whether the AO had jurisdiction to make assessments under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The AO issued notices under Section 153C based on documents found during a search at the premises of other entities. The assessee contended that the AO lacked jurisdiction as no relevant material belonging to the assessee was found during the search. The Ld. CIT(A) quashed the proceedings under Section 153C, holding that the AO of the searched person must be satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the one searched, and this satisfaction must be recorded.

2. Validity of the Assessment Orders for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 under Section 153C:
The assessments for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 were challenged on the grounds that they were beyond the permissible period of six years from the end of the financial year in which the seized material was handed over to the AO of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the relevant assessment years for initiating proceedings under Section 153C should be from AY 2010-11 to 2015-16, as the satisfaction was recorded on 23.02.2016. Consequently, the assessments for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 were annulled as they were outside the scope of Section 153C.

3. Applicability of the Six-Year Limitation Period for Assessment under Section 153C:
The Ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal both referenced the judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd., which clarified that the six-year period for assessments under Section 153C should be reckoned from the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person. This interpretation was upheld, and it was determined that the six-year period in this case would cover AYs 2010-11 to 2015-16, thereby excluding AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10.

4. Reliance on the Judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd.:
The judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. was pivotal in this case. It was cited to support the interpretation that the six-year period for assessments under Section 153C should be calculated from the date of satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched person. This judgment was consistently followed by the ITAT in similar cases, including M/s BNB Investment & Properties Ltd. and Pavitra Realcon Pvt. Ltd., reinforcing the decision to annul the assessments for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to quash the assessment orders for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 as null and void, based on the jurisdictional issue and the six-year limitation period under Section 153C. The reliance on the Delhi High Court's judgment in CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. was reaffirmed, ensuring consistency in the application of the law. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.