NITIN KUMAR SARAIYA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 103/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2015-20169 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the period for which the assessee is required to file a return under Section 153C commences from the year in which the information or material is forwarded to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In this case, the information was forwarded on October 12, 2023, making AY 2024-25 the starting point. The Tribunal noted that the undisclosed income determined was below Rs. 50 lakh, thus the extended period of 10 years under Section 153C is not available to the revenue. Respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasjit Singh (supra), the Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C for AY 2015-16 is bad in law and therefore quashed. Consequently, the assessment order passed for AY 2015-16 was also quashed. The ratio decidendi is that the commencement of the Section 153C period is tied to the date of receipt of materials by the jurisdictional AO, and the ten-year period is contingent on the undisclosed income exceeding Rs. 50 lakh.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nitin Kumar Saraiya, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The case originated from a search conducted on Shree Kuberji Group of Surat on February 6, 2020, alleging 'on money' transactions for the purchase of commercial property by the assessee in the name of 'Westfield Shopping Centre'. The Assessing Officer (AO) forwarded the satisfaction note and related materials to the assessee's AO on October 12, 2023. The assessee contended that the period for filing a return under Section 153C should commence from this date, making AY 2024-25 the starting point. The assessee also argued that since the undisclosed income assessed was Rs. 40,06,729, which is below Rs. 50,00,000, the extended period of ten years under Section 153C is not applicable, limiting it to six assessment years. Therefore, the notice issued for AY 2015-16 was impermissible.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16 is valid, considering the date on which the relevant materials were forwarded to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. 2. Whether the extended period of ten assessment years under Section 153C is applicable when the undisclosed income is below Rs. 50,00,000. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that as per the decision in CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh (SC), the period for filing a return under Section 153C commences from the date the materials are forwarded to the jurisdictional AO, which was October 12, 2023. This implies that AY 2024-25 is the starting point for the six-year period. The assessee further contended that since the total undisclosed income assessed for the block period was Rs. 40,06,729, which is less than Rs. 50,00,000, the extended period of ten years under Section 153C is not available. Consequently, the notice issued for AY 2015-16, which falls outside the six-year period from AY 2024-25, is impermissible and liable to be quashed. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT, DR
Hearing: 07.05.2025Pronounced: 07.05.2025

Per Bench :

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (in short “CIT(A) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) dated 15.07.2024 for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the Ld. AR that there was a search on the premise of Shree Kuberji Group of Surat on 06.02.2020. It was the submission that

2 IT(SS)A No. 103/Kol/2024 Nitin Kumar Saraiya, AY: 2015-16 there was allegation of ‘on money’ transaction for the purchase of certain commercial property by the assessee in the name of ‘Westfield Shopping Centre’. It was the submission that as per the Assessing Officer in para 3 of the assessment order that the satisfaction note and the materials were forwarded to the assessee’s Assessing Officer only on 12.10.2023. It was the submission that consequently, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh reported in [2023] 458 ITR 437 (SC) the period for which the assessee would be required to file the return u/s. 153C would commence only from the date when the materials were forwarded to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer being the AY 2024- 25 relevant to the date 12.10.2023. It was the submission that under normal circumstances u/s. 153C, reopening is permissible only for six previous years relevant to the previous year in which sanction has been received. However, the provisions of section 153C extends to ten years if the income which has been alleged to escape assessment/undisclosed income was to an extent of Rs. 50,00,000/- and the same was also represented in the form of asset. The Ld. AR submitted that the impugned assessment year is 2015-16 which admittedly, is the 10th year and the income assessed for the full block period under section 153C was only Rs.40,06,729/-. It was the submission that as the undisclosed income was below Rs.50 lakh the period for filing the return gets reduced to six assessment years and consequently notice issued u/s. 153C in the case of the assessment year 2015-16 was impermissible and the notice along with the consequential assessment order is liable to be quashed. The Ld. AR also filed written submissions as follows:

3 IT(SS)A No. 103/Kol/2024 Nitin Kumar Saraiya, AY: 2015-16

4 IT(SS)A No. 103/Kol/2024 Nitin Kumar Saraiya, AY: 2015-16

5 IT(SS)A No. 103/Kol/2024 Nitin Kumar Saraiya, AY: 2015-16

6 IT(SS)A No. 103/Kol/2024 Nitin Kumar Saraiya, AY: 2015-16

7 IT(SS)A No. 103/Kol/2024 Nitin Kumar Saraiya, AY: 2015-16

8 IT(SS)A No. 103/Kol/2024 Nitin Kumar Saraiya, AY: 2015-16

4.

In reply, the Ld. CIT, DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasjit Singh (supra), the period for which the assessee is required to file the return would start from the year in which the information/material are forwarded to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In the impugned appeal, the information has been forwarded to as per the AAO on 12.10.2023, therefore, six years from the AY 2024-25 would expire with the AY 2018-19. Admittedly, the undisclosed income

9 IT(SS)A No. 103/Kol/2024 Nitin Kumar Saraiya, AY: 2015-16 determined itself is below Rs. 50 lakh and, therefore, the extended period of 10 years is not available to the revenue. This being so, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasjit Singh (supra) it is held that the notice issued u/s. 153C for the AY 2015-16 is bad in law and stand quashed. As the notice u/s. 153C stands quashed consequently, the assessment order passed for the AY 2015-16 also stands quashed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is dictated and pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Awasthi) (George Mathan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 7th May, 2025 JD, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: Shri Nitin Kumar Sariya 2. The Respondent. DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata 6. Guard file. True Copy By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →