9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2020-21. Keeping in view on the orders of Jasjit Singh [ 2023 (10) TMI 572 - SUPREME COURT] and RRJ Securities Ltd [ 2015 (11) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned assessment order is invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued. Accordingly, we quash the impugned assessment order. As a natural corollary, the appeal order is set aside. - DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Sh. Abhinav Vijh Sh. Atul Vijh, CAs. For the Respondent : Sh. Devender Singh, CIT DR. ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: 1. The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana, [(in brevity the CIT(A) ] order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for assessment year 2020-21. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jalandhar, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Ground No. 3 of Additional Ground and Ground 2 of main Ground. The Ground -2 of Additional Ground is not pressed. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee the assessee is a licensed IELTS/ TOFEL instructor running a proprietorship consultancy business under the banner M/s MS Overseas Consultants. The asseseee provides ILETS and TOFEL coaching to the students who wish to pursue their higher education outside India or otherwise are desirous of settling down abroad. The assessee also counsels the students regarding the selection of course and educational institute and also assists them with filing of visa applications. For the impugned assessment year under consideration, the assessee has filed return of income on dated December 21, 2020 wherein total income has been declared at Rs. 11,05,600/-. On dated 27.11.2019 assessee s employee was carrying along with him Rs. 29,00,000 which was the cash in hand of the proprietorship firm of the assessee and the same was intercepted by Goraya Police near Phillaur. The assessee s employee had explained the police that cash seized belongs to the assesee s firm in which he is an employee and he was merely acting on the instruction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR vehemently argued and filed the written submission which are kept in the record. The ld. AR in argument and placed that the relevant documents were handed over the ld. AO of the searched person i.e JCIT (OSD), Central Range 1 to the ld. AO of assessee i.e ITO Ward 1(1) on 16.03.2021 i.e FY 2020-21 and relevant AY would be AY 2021-22. As per section 153C the assessment has to be framed for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made. Further The first proviso to sub section (1) of section 153C further states that, in case of other than searched person in whose case action is proposed to be taken u/s 153C, the reference to the date of initiation of shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized by the ld. AO having jurisdiction over such other person. Therefore, on conjoint reading of subsection (1) of 153C and first proviso to the said section it is clear that the block of six years is to be considered with refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars which is not the requirement in law. Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be attributed to Parliament. On the other hand, a plain reading of section 153-C supports the interpretation which this Court adopts. 5.2 The reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. [2015] 62 taxmann.com 391/[2016] 380 ITR 612. Held, 36. The decision in SSP Aviation Ltd. (supra) cannot be understood to mean that the AO has the jurisdiction to make a reassessment in every case, where seized assets or documents are handed over to the AO. The question whether the documents/assets seized could possibly reflect any undisclosed income has to be considered by the AO after examining the seized assets/documents handed over to him. It is only in cases where the seized documents/assets could possibly reflect any undisclosed income of the Assessee for the relevant assessment years, that further enquiry would be warranted in respect of those years. Whilst, it is not necessary for the AO to be satisfied that the assets/documents seized during search of another person reflect undisclosed income of an Assessee before commencing an enquiry under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
