ALANKIT TECHNOLOGIES LIMTED -AFTER MERGER OF -EUROPLUS FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1) DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/3110/2024HC DelhiDLHC01010105202415 May 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petitions. The Court held that the notices dated May 18, 2022, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 were ex facie beyond the maximum window of ten years prescribed. The Court relied on its previous decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. This decision clarified that the commencement date for computing the ten-year period under Section 153C is governed by the First Proviso, which shifts the reference point to the date of receipt of books of accounts, documents, or assets by the jurisdictional AO, rather than the date of search. Consequently, the impugned notices and all consequential proceedings were quashed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Alankit Technologies Limited (after merger of Europlus Financial Service Ltd), filed three writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. These petitions challenged notices dated May 18, 2022, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notices pertained to Assessment Years (AYs) 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1) Delhi, was the respondent. The core of the challenge was that the assessment years fell outside the prescribed time limits for issuing such notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated May 18, 2022, for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 are valid, considering the ten-year limitation period. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the Assessment Years in question (2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13) fall beyond the maximum window of ten years prescribed for issuing notices under Section 153C, making the notices invalid. They relied on the judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in opposition to the assessee's arguments regarding the limitation period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

W.P.(C) 3110/2024
W.P.(C) 3113/2024
W.P.(C) 3148/2024

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

$~51-53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3110/2024 & CM APPL. 12779/2024 (Stay) ALANKIT TECHNOLOGIES LIMTED -AFTER MERGER OF -EUROPLUS FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Mr. Salil Kapoor and Mr. Shivam Yadav, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1) DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC. 52 + W.P.(C) 3113/2024 & CM APPL. 12785/2024 (Stay) ALANKIT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (AFTER MERGER OF EUROPLUS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Mr. Salil Kapoor and Mr. Shivam Yadav, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1) DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC. 53 + W.P.(C) 3148/2024 & CM APPL. 12900/2024 (Stay) ALANKIT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (AFTER MERGER OF EUROPLUS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Mr. Salil Kapoor and Mr. Shivam Yadav, Advs.

versus

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. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2024 at 11:45:33

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1) DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

15.05.2024 O R D E R

1.

These writ petitions have been preferred against the impugned notices dated 18 May 2022 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] for Assessment Years’ [“AYs”] 2010-11 [W.P.(C) 3110/2024], 2011-12 [W.P.(C) 3113/2024] and 2012-13 [W.P.(C) 3148/2024] and all consequential proceedings. 2. Bearing in mind the undisputed fact that notices under Section 153C were dated 18 May 2022, it is ex facie evident that the aforenoted AYs’ would fall beyond the maximum window of ten years as prescribed. 3. The issue in any case stands answered and covered in favour of the writ petitioner in light of the judgment rendered in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd [2024 SCC OnLine Del 2439]. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid decision read as under:- “D. The First Proviso to Section 153C introduces a legal fiction on the basis of which the commencement date for computation of the six year or the ten year block is deemed to be the date of receipt of books of accounts by the jurisdictional AO. The identification of the starting block for the purposes of computation of the six and the ten year period is governed by the First Proviso to Section 153C, 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. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2024 at 11:45:33

which significantly shifts the reference point spoken of in Section 153A(1), while defining the point from which the period of the “relevant assessment year” is to be calculated, to 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 the assessment year”. This distinction would have to necessarily be acknowledged in light of the statute having consciously adopted the phraseology “immediately preceding” when it 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. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2024 at 11:45:33

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 4. Accordingly, and for reasons assigned in our decision in Ojjus Medicare, we allow the instant writ petitions and quash the impugned notices dated 18 May 2022 issued under Section 153C of the Act and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. .”

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. MAY 15, 2024/RW

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. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2024 at 11:45:33

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →