9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner : Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing Counsel With Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. K.R. Manjani, Advocate With Mr. B.K. Manjani, Advocate. ORDER 1. These appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) are directed against the common order dated 28th November 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA Nos. 567-568/Del/2011 and 4812-4816/Del/2012 for the Assessment Years ( AYs ) 2000-01 to 2002-03. 2. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in accepting the plea of the Assessee that the assessments for the aforementioned AYs were barred by limitation in terms of the proviso to Section 153C of the Act. 3. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. The further contention is that in any event the effect of a combined reading of the first proviso to Section 153B (1) and the first proviso to Section 153C (1) of the Act would only be that regular assessments which may have been pending for any of the six AYs preceding the year of search would abate but that the period for completion of assessments would begin to run from the later date i.e. the date of handing over of the accounts and documents etc to the AO of the 'other person'. In effect, learned counsel for the Revenue doubted the correctness of the decisions in SSP Aviation (supra) and RRJ Securities(supra) and sought a reference of the case to a larger Bench. 6. Having considered the relevant provisions and the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontended by the Revenue 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. If this interpretation as canvassed by the Revenue is accepted, it would mean that whereas in case of a person searched, assessments in relation to six previous years preceding the year in which the search takes place can be reopened but in case of any other person, who is not searched but his assets are seized from the searched person, the period for which the assessments could be reopened would be much beyond the period of six years. This is so because the date of handing over of assets/documents of a person, other than the searched person, to the AO woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the AO having jurisdiction over such other person and the six earlier AYs would have to be reckoned with reference to such postponed date of search. The first proviso to Section 153 B (1) does not support the case sought to be canvassed by the Revenue. It refers to and acknowledges that the date of search qua the 'other person', in terms of the first proviso to Section 153 C (1), gets postponed to the date on which documents are handed over to the AO of the 'other person'. Consequently, the question of referring the case to a larger Bench does not arise. 8. In the present case, there is no doubt that it was only on 24th March 2009 that the AO of the Assessee received the documents seized and it was on that date a noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
