9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 31.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for reopening the assessment in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of the limitation as stipulated under Section 149 (1) of the Act. It is pointed out that the first proviso of Section 149 (1) of the Act provides that no notice under Section 148 of the Act could be issued at any time in a case for the relevant AY beginning on or before the first day of April, 2021, if a notice under Section 148, Section 153A or Section 153C of the Act could not have been issued on account of being beyond the time limit as stipulated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) of sub-section (1) of this section or Section 153-A or Section 153-C, as the case may be, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021: Provided further that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in a case, where a notice under Section 153-A, or Section 153-C read with Section 153-A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under Section 132-A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021:" 5. In the present case, the petitioner's assessment is sought to be reopened on the basis of the information available pursuant to a search conducted on 11.10.2023 in respect of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 148 was issued. 9. As noted above, the short question to be considered by this Court is whether the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of limitation as stipulated under Section 149 (1) (b) of the Act. The said issue is squarely covered by the earlier decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others 2024: DHC:4554-DB as well as in The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Limited 2024:DHC:2629-DB. 10. In Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:- "8. Undisputedly, and in terms of Section 153C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s date would be of seminal importance since the period of six AYs' or the "relevant assessment year" would have to be reckoned from the date when action was initiated to reopen the assessment pertaining to AY 2013-14." 11. In The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Limited (supra), the Court also explained the manner in which the period of six or ten years is required to be reckoned in respect of reopening of the assessment for a period prior to six years and/or before the expiry of ten years from the relevant assessment years as contemplated under Section 153C of the Act. The court held that the period of ten years is required to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the year in which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... countenanced nor accepted. E. The reckoning of the six AYs' would require one to firstly identify the FY in which the search was undertaken and which would lead to the ascertainment of the AY relevant to the previous year of search. The block of six AYs' would consequently be those which immediately precede the AY relevant to the year of search. In the case of a search assessment undertaken in terms of Section 153C, the solitary distinction would be that the previous year of search would stand substituted by the date or the year in which the books of accounts or documents and assets seized are handed over to the jurisdictional AO as opposed to the year of search which constitutes the basis for an assessment under Section 153A. F. While ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-20 7 2018-19 8 2017-18 9 2016-17 10 2015-16 11 (beyond terminal point of 10 years) 14. Mr Chawla, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, fairly states that there is no cavil with the said tabular statement and that the issue is covered by the decisions of this Court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others (supra) as well as The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Limited (supra). He, however, submits that the Revenue may challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. 15. In view of the above, the impugned notice is set aside. Consequently, the respondent is restrained from the proceeding with the re-assessment proceedings in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
