DINESH SHAH (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR-3(4), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) for AY 2009-10 was bad in law. This was because the relevant assessment year fell outside the scope of Section 153C, as the date of recording satisfaction by the AO (15.03.2016) meant AY 2009-10 was beyond the permissible six assessment years.
What were the facts?
The assessee (HUF and individual) faced additions based on a search action in a third party's premises, alleging accommodation entries and bogus unsecured loans. Subsequently, a search was conducted in the assessee's group, and the assessee purportedly admitted to availing accommodation entries for on-money generation.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment framed under Section 153C for AY 2009-10 was valid when the assessment year was beyond the six-year period from the date of recording satisfaction by the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.689 citing62 Taxmann.com 391 · 2016 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
1151 &1152/Mum/2020 AY 2009-10 Dinesh Shah (HUF) आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals filed by the assessee (HUF) and assessee (individual) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-51, Mumbai [hereinafter the CIT(A)] dated 28.11.2019 for AY 2009-10.
Both sides agree that issue raised by both the assessees and the facts in both appeals are similar; and that the additions have been made in the hands of both assesses based inter-alia on initial search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter the Act] carried out in the premises of Pravin Kumar Jain (3rd party) on 01.10.2023, wherein it was admitted by him (Pravin Kumar Jain) that his concerns were engaged in providing accommodation entries in the nature of bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases etc; and that the assessee’s group including both the assessees are its beneficiary and had obtained bogus unsecured loans from Pravin Kumar Jain. Based on the aforesaid information, further searches were carried out in other entry operator’s premises like Shri Bangvari Lal Jain and Shri Ratan Jain. And subsequently, search u/s 132 of the Act took place in Ankur Shubham Group/assessee group on 10-12-2013 and it was found that assessee was the key person of the said group who had purportedly admitted in his statement dated 24.03.2014 that accommodation entries have been availed in the nature of unsecured loan by payment of commission @3% to entry-operators; and assessee explained the modus of generation of on-money on sale of flats from its real estate projects which was brought into regular books by availing 1151 &1152/Mum/2020 AY 2009-10 Dinesh Shah (HUF) accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loans from the various entities.Pursuant to the search in assessee’s group companies, AO initiated proceeding under section 153C of the Act, against both the assessee’s by issue of notice dated 15.03.2016. The assessee has raised the legal ground against the assessment framed u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) for the AY 2009-10 in both the cases.
Since, assessee has raised the legal issue inter-alia against the action of the Assessing Officer to have framed assessment u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act on the ground that relevant AY 2009-10 would not fall in the ken of section 153C r.w.s 153A of the Act, so the assessment framed is bad in law.
Since, the facts and the law are the same in the both the appeals, we take the appeal of individual assessee as lead case and the result of which will be followed in the other appeal of Assessee/HUF. Brief facts pertaining to the legal issue is that the pursuant to a search on 10-12-2013 in the case of Ankur Shubham Group, it was found that the assessee was key person of the said group, and since no search warrant was executed in the name of both the assessee’s, the AO initiated proceedings u/s 153C of the Act after issuing statutory notice in 2016; and since, the assessee being not the “searched person” for the purpose u/s 153A of the Act, for the purpose of section 153C of the Act, the reference to date of search has to construed as the date of recording satisfaction, which in this case is 15.03.2016 [AY 2016-17]. Consequently, six (6) assessment years for which assessment/re- assessment could be made u/s 153C of the Act would also have to be construed with reference to date of handing over of documents to AO of assessee/recording 1151 &1152/Mum/2020 AY 2009-10 Dinesh Shah (HUF) of satisfaction by AO of Assessee i.e, 15.03.2016. In this view, the assessment made u/s 153C of the Act for AY 2009-10 would be beyond the six assessment years as reckoned with reference to the date of recording of satisfaction viz 15.3.2016. We therefore, accept the contention that the relevant assessment year i.e, AY 2009-10 were outside the scope of section 153C of the Act; and the AO had no jurisdiction to make an assessment of assessee’s income for AY 2009-10. For this preposition we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ld. CIT(A) v/s RRJ Security Ltd. (2013) 62 taxmann.com 391 (Delhi), M/s Pavitra Relater Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT (87) taxmann.com 142, 5. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 26/04/2023. (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; दिनांकDated : 26/04/2023. Aniket Rajput
More judgments on Section 153C
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ajay Singh, Kota vs DCIT, Central Circle, KotaITA 495/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026