9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears as contemplated u/s 153A of the ACT may not be applicable. In the present case, a notice has been issued beyond the period of six years from the end of the AY 2014-15 and therefore, the notice is clearly beyond the period of limitation. The petition is allowed and the impugned notices issued u/s 148A (b) and 148 of the Act, are set aside. Decided in favour of assessee. - HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA For the Petitioner Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Mr. Nishcay Kantoor, Ms. Soniya Dodeja and Mr. Divyansh Dubey, Advocates For the Respondent Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC, Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC and Mr. Anmol Jagga, Advocate VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 23.08.2024 issued under 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act); an order dated 31.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) passed under Section 148A (d) of the Act pursuant to the said notice; and a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, in respect of assessment year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The petitioner s challenge to the notices dated 23.08.2024 and 31.08.2024 (here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the petitioner, the assessments/reassessment could be initiated under Section 153C of the Act 9. The learned counsel for the Revenue does not dispute that the case stands covered in favour of the petitioner by the case of Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi Others: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4554-DB . In the said case, this court has held that the reassessment pursuant to a search carried out after 01.04.2021 would necessarily have to follow the timeframe as specified under Sections 153A and 153C of the Act. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below: 8. Undisputedly, and in terms of section 153C (3) of the Act, any search if conducted after 01 April 2021, would cease to be regulated by that provision. Sub-section (3), in that sense, embodies a sunset clause in so far as the applicability of Section 153C is concerned. The First Proviso to Section 149 (1), however, bids us to go back in a point of time, and to examine whether a reopening would sustain bearing in mind the timeframes as they stood embodied in Section 149 (1) (b) or Section 153A and Section 153C, as the case may be. The First Proviso essentially requires us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16) 380 ITR 612 (Delhi); 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13085.] as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Jasjit Singh [(2023) 458 ITR 437 (SC); 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1265.]. The aforesaid legal position also stood reiterated by the Supreme Court in ITO v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia [(2023) 453 ITR 417 (SC); 2023 SCC OnLine SC 370.]. The submission of the respondents, therefore, that the block periods would have to be reckoned with reference to the date of search can neither be 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 assessment year 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 account 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 asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handed over to the jurisdictional AO. The import of this legal fiction is no longer res integra bearing in mind the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Jasjit Singh Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1265 and the whole line of precedents rendered by our High Court which were noticed in Ojjus Medicare Private Limited . Those decisions have consistently held that in the case of a non-searched entity, it is the date of hand over of material, as opposed to that of the actual search which would constitute the starting point for reckoning the block of six or ten AYs. 14. However, Section 149 (1), as it came to be placed and introduced in the statute book by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021, neither effaces nor removes from contemplation the First Proviso to Section 153C (1). Consequently, in cases where a search is conducted after 31 March 2021, the said Proviso would have to be construed and tested with reference to the date when the AO decides to initiate action against the non-searched entity. While in the case of a search initiated after 31 March 2021 there would be no actual hand over of material to the jurisdictional AO, that does not convince us to revert to section 153A and hold that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
