RAMAA ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 20

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/13250/2024HC DelhiDLHC01062957202428 October 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned notices dated August 31, 2024, and September 12, 2024, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court relied on the principles laid down in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central – 1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The court observed that the matters at hand related to AYs 2010-11 to 2015-16, which were beyond ten years from the date of issuance of the notice. The reasoning was that the ten-year block period, as per the First Proviso to Section 153C, must be reckoned from the date of receipt of books of accounts, documents, or assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. The court found that the reassessment proceedings initiated for AYs 2010-11 to 2015-16 were beyond the permissible ten-year period, thus rendering the notices unsustainable. The ratio decidendi is that the ten-year block period under Section 153C must be calculated from the date of receipt of seized materials by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person, and any action beyond this period is invalid.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Ramaa Advisors Private Limited, filed writ petitions challenging reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was primarily based on an order dated September 20, 2024, which noted that the action under Section 153C might not be sustainable based on the principles laid down in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central – 1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The court had restrained the respondents (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) from taking further steps. The revenue acknowledged the tabular statement but disputed the method of calculating the ten-year block period. The matters pertained to Assessment Years (AYs) 2010-11 to 2015-16.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are sustainable when the ten-year block period, as calculated from the date of receipt of books of accounts, documents, or assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person, extends beyond the relevant period? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the action under Section 153C would not sustain. They relied on the decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central – 1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. [2024 SCC Online Del 2439], stating that the ten-year limitation must be calculated from the date of receipt of seized materials by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. Based on the date of hand over, the ten-year block period should have at best extended up to AY 2016-17. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue did not dispute the tabular statement but contended that they had not accepted the manner of calculating the block period of ten years. They noted that a Special Leave Petition had been preferred against the decision in PCIT Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (6 matters)

W.P.(C) 13246/2024
W.P.(C) 13247/2024
W.P.(C) 13248/2024
W.P.(C) 13249/2024
W.P.(C) 13250/2024
W.P.(C) 13251/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

W.P.(C) 13246/2024 & connected matters Page 1 of 7

$~53 to 58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 28.10.2025

+ W.P.(C) 13246/2024 CM APPL. 55360/2024 + W.P.(C) 13247/2024 CM APPL. 55362/2024 + W.P.(C) 13248/2024 CM APPL. 55365/2024 + W.P.(C) 13249/2024 CM APPL. 55367/2024 + W.P.(C) 13250/2024 CM APPL. 55369/2024 + W.P.(C) 13251/2024 CM APPL. 55371/2024

RAMAA ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Sr Advocate with

Ms. Mansha Anand, Mr. Abhyudaya

Shankar Bajpai, Mr. Sohum Dua, Ms.

Manvi, Adv, Mr. Ghunaim Siddiqui,

Mr. Pratham Agarwal, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 20 .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal Sr. SC, Ms.

Sakshi Shairwal, Mr. Akshat Singh

Jr. SCs, Mr. Gaoraang Ranajn and

Ms. Harshita Kotru, Advocates.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:03.11.2025 15:42:28 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 13246/2024 & connected matters Page 2 of 7

1.

These writ petitions involve identical issues with regard to the reassessment proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The challenge primarily is recorded in the order dated 20.09.2024 which we reproduce as under: ―1. Notice. Since the respondents are duly represented by learned counsel Mr. Agarwal, let a reply be filed within a period of six weeks from today. The petitioner shall have two weeks therefrom to file a rejoinder affidavit. 2. We take note of the following chart handed over by Mr. Jolly, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners:-

3.

Tested on the principles laid down in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central – 1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd [2024 SCC Online Del 2439], it is prima facie apparent that the action under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not sustain. The limitation of ten AYs has to be calculated from the date of receipt of books of accounts, Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:03.11.2025 15:42:28 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 13246/2024 & connected matters Page 3 of 7

documents or assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the non- searched person from the jurisdictional AO of the searched person. Bearing in mind the date of hand over it would be apparent that the ten year block period could have at best extended up to AY 2016-17 as per the table reproduced below.

Matter requires consideration. 4. We, accordingly, and till the next date of listing, restrain the respondents from taking further steps pursuant to the impugned notice dated 12 September 2024. 5. List again on 24.01.2025.‖ 2. Mr. Vipul Agrawal, learned Senior Standing Counsel contends that the Revenue has no cavil with the tabular statement reflected in the order dated 20.09.2024. He, however, submits that the Revenue has not accepted the manner of calculating the block period of ten years. In the case of PCIT Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd, [2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi) (as noted in the order) the Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition against the said decision. 3. These appeals are covered by the said judgment in favour of the petitioners in view of the observations in paragraphs 86 to 90, which we reproduce as under: Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:03.11.2025 15:42:28 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 13246/2024 & connected matters Page 4 of 7

―86. In the present batch, List I pertains to writ petitions which have Satisfaction Notes recorded or Section 153C notices issued between the period 01 April 2021 to 31 March 2022. Undisputedly, the First Proviso to Section 153C, and which has been consistently recognized to also embody the commencement point for reckoning the six or the ten AYs', shifts the relevant date from the date of initiation of search or a requisition made to the date of receipt of books of account or documents and assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. Consequently, the block of six or ten AYs' would have to be reckoned bearing the aforesaid date in mind. Although in the present batch of writ petitions, the date of actual handing over has not been explicitly mentioned in a majority of the writ petitions, learned counsels for respective sides had addressed submissions based on the assumption that it would be the date of issuance of the Satisfaction Note by the AO of the non-searched person and in the case of non- availability of such a note, the date of issuance of the Section 153C notices which would be pertinent for the purposes of the First Proviso to Section 153C. 87. Assuming, therefore, that the handover of material gathered in the course of the search and pertaining to the non-searched person occurred between 01 April 2021 to 31 March 2022, the same would essentially constitute FY 2021-2022 as being the previous year of search for the purposes of the non-searched entity. As a necessary corollary, the relevant AY would become AY 2022-2023. AY 2022-2023 would thus constitute the starting point for the purposes of identifying the six years which are spoken of in Section 153C. The six AYs' are envisaged to be those which immediately precede the AY so identified with reference to the previous year of search. It would thus lead us to conclude that it would be the six AYs' immediately preceding AY 2022-2023 which could have formed the basis for initiation of action under Section 153C. Consequently, and reckoned backward, the six relevant AYs' would be:— Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:03.11.2025 15:42:28 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 13246/2024 & connected matters Page 5 of 7

Consequently, AY 2021-2022 would become the first of the six

preceding AYs' and would as per the table set out hereinabove

terminate at AY 2016-2017.

88.

Section 153A replicates the basis on which the six AYs' are to be

identified and computed with the solitary distinction being that in

the case of the searched person, the six AYs' are liable to be

computed from the AY pertaining to the FY in which the search was

conducted. The starting point for the purposes of identifying the six

AYs' in the case of Section 153A would thus turn upon the year of

search as opposed to the handover of material which is spoken of in

the First Proviso to Section 153C. If one were to therefore

assume that a search took place on a person between 01 April 2021 to

31 March 2022, the pertinent AY would become AY 2022-2023 and

the corresponding six AYs' would be as follows:—

89.

That takes us then to the issue of identifying the ―relevant assessment year‖ for the purposes of computing the ten year block. Explanation 1 to Section 153A specifies the manner in which the entire ten AY period is to be computed. While the computation of six Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:03.11.2025 15:42:28 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 13246/2024 & connected matters Page 6 of 7

AYs' follows the position as enunciated and identified above, Explanation 1 prescribes that the ten AYs' would have to be computed from the end of the AY relevant to the FY in which the search was conducted or requisition made. The ten AY period consequently is to be reckoned from the end of the AY pertaining to the previous year in which the search was conducted as distinct from the preceding year which is spoken of in the case of the six relevant AYs'. 90. Viewed in that light, and while keeping the period of 01 April 2021 to 31 March 2022 as the constant, the relevant AY would be AY 2022-2023. The ten AYs' would have to be computed from 31 March 2023 with the said date indubitably constituting the end of the AY relevant to the previous year of search. Viewed in light of the above, the block period of 10 AYs' would be as follows:—

4.

We note that the matters at hand relates back to AYs 2010-11 to 2015- 16 which are beyond ten years, as on the date of issuance of notice. 5. In view of the aforesaid position of law, all these writ petitions need to be allowed. The impugned notices dated 31.08.2024 and 12.09.2024 under Section 153C of the Act in these writ petitions are set aside. 6. The writ petitions are disposed of. Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:03.11.2025 15:42:28 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 13246/2024 & connected matters Page 7 of 7

7.

The pending applications if any are disposed of as infructuous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

VINOD KUMAR, J

OCTOBER 28, 2025 rt Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:03.11.2025 15:42:28 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →