KLJ RESOURCES LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI & ANR.

O R D E R %

d) issue a writ of certiorari or writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, direction, or order to quash the satisfaction note dated 27.08.2024 recorded in the case of the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 1; and e) grant an ad-interim ex-parte relief in terms of above prayers, inter alia, staying all proceedings/ actions subsequent/ consequent to the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under section 148 of the Act for AY 2014-15, during the pendency of the present petition; and/or.”

“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 & Others1 as well as in The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Limited2. 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(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 insofar 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 153C, as the case may be. The First Proviso essentially requires us to undertake that consideration bearing in mind the timeframes which stood specified in Sections 149, 153A and 153C as they stood prior to the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

commencement of Finance Act, 2021. 9. Thus, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in relation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to meet the foundational tests as specified in the First Proviso to Section 149(1). A reassessment action would thus have to not only satisfy the time frames constructed in terms of Section 149, but in a relevant case and which is concerned with a search, also those which would be applicable by virtue of the provisions of Section 153A and 153C.

the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the non searched person. The shift of the relevant date in the case of a non-searched person being regulated by the First Proviso of Section 153C(1) is an issue which is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively settled by virtue of the decisions of this Court in SSP Aviation and RRJ Securities as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasjit Singh. The aforesaid legal position also stood reiterated by the Supreme Court in Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia. 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 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 the identification and computation of the six AYs’ hinges upon the phrase “immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year” of search, the ten year period would have to be reckoned from the 31st day of March of the AY relevant to the year of search. This, since undisputedly, Explanation 1 of Section 153A requires us to reckon it “from the end of theassessment year”. This distinction would have to necessarily be acknowledged in light of the statute having consciously adopted the phraseology “immediately preceding” when it be in relation to the six year period and employing the expression “from the end of the assessment year” while speaking of the ten year block.”

23 of the petition to contend that from the chart reproduced on these pages, it is clear that the impugned notice dated 31.8.2024 shall be barred by limitation. We reproduce the chart as under :

Analysis of time-period to issue reassessment notice. Date of impugned notice under section 148 is 31.08.2024 This chart is prepared in light of the first proviso of Section 149 of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021 Relevant Assessment Year for initiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act Without prejudice, computation of 10 years in light of first proviso to Section 149 2025-26 1 2024-25 2 2023-24 3 2022-23 4 2021-22 5 2020-21 6 2019-20 7 2018-19 8 2017-18 9 2016-17 10 2015-16 11 2014-15 12 Beyond terminal point of 10 years)

Income Tax- Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.: Neutral Citation No.:2024:DHC:2629-DB, the notice being dated 31.08.2024, in respect of Assessment Year 2015-2016, the same falls beyond the period of six years as stipulated under Section 149 read with Section 153C of the Act.