Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the Revenue and cross These appeals by the Revenue and cross-objection by the objection by the assessee are directed against a common order dated 28.09.2021 assessee are directed against a common order dated 28.09.2021 assessee are directed against a common order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011 Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011 Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13.
2. The grounds and cross The grounds and cross-objection of the assessee for objection of the assessee for assessment year 2011 assessment year 2011-12 are reproduced as under:
ITA No. 2293/MUM/2021 Assessment Year: 2011 2011-12 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Rs. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Rs. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Rs. 61,80,01 and in law the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in 61,80,01 and in law the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in deleting the deleting the addition made by the A0 on account of taking capitation addition made by the A0 on account of taking capitation addition made by the A0 on account of taking capitation fee/donation in cash of Rs.2.00 Crores for admission of fee/donation in cash of Rs.2.00 Crores for admission of fee/donation in cash of Rs.2.00 Crores for admission of students in Medical College at Kolhapur. students in Medical College at Kolhapur. 2.
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition justified in deleting the addition made on account capitation fee/donation in cash of Rs.2.00 made on account capitation fee/donation in cash of Rs.2.00 made on account capitation fee/donation in cash of Rs.2.00 crores without appreciating the fact that the AO has made crores without appreciating the fact that the AO has made crores without appreciating the fact that the AO has made
Dr. DY Patil Education Society Dr. DY Patil Education Society 3 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 addition addition addition on on on the the the basis basis basis of of of facts/statements facts/statements facts/statements of of of the the the employees/evidences gathered during the course of search employees/evidences gathered during the course of sear employees/evidences gathered during the course of sear and assessment proceedings. and assessment proceedings.
CO No. 58/MUM/2022 (ITA No. 2293/MUM/2021) (ITA No. 2293/MUM/2021) Assessment Year: 2011 2011-12 1. That the notice issued U/s 153C and/the assessment order That the notice issued U/s 153C and/the assessment order That the notice issued U/s 153C and/the assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act ('Act') is passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act ('Act') is passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act ('Act') is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdic illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and barred by time tion and barred by time limitation. limitation.
2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)- -49 Mumbai (CIT(A)) has grossly erred in law and on facts in upholding the (CIT(A)) has grossly erred in law and on facts in upholding the (CIT(A)) has grossly erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by the Assessing officer us 153C r.w.s. assessment order passed by the Assessing officer us 153C r.w.s. assessment order passed by the Assessing officer us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 143(3) of the Act.
3. That the Learned A That the Learned Assessing Office as well as Ld CIT(A) erred in ssessing Office as well as Ld CIT(A) erred in law and not appreciating the facts that the addition is not law and not appreciating the facts that the addition is not law and not appreciating the facts that the addition is not sustainable in a non sustainable in a non- abated assessment year without any abated assessment year without any incriminating document found during the course of search." incriminating document found during the course of search." incriminating document found during the course of search."
4. That the respondent craves leave t That the respondent craves leave to reserve to itself the right o reserve to itself the right to add to, alter, or amend any of the aforesaid grounds of to add to, alter, or amend any of the aforesaid grounds of to add to, alter, or amend any of the aforesaid grounds of cross objection at or before the time of hearing and to cross objection at or before the time of hearing and to cross objection at or before the time of hearing and to produce such further evidence, documents and papers in produce such further evidence, documents and papers in produce such further evidence, documents and papers in support of its claim as may be necessary. support of its claim as may be necessary.
Dr. DY Patil Education Society Dr. DY Patil Education Society 4 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022
The grounds and cross objection in respect of AY 2012 and cross objection in respect of AY 2012 and cross objection in respect of AY 2012-13 are also identical except quantum of addition except quantum of addition, therefore, same are not , therefore, same are not reproduced here for brevity. for brevity.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a trust Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a trust Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a trust was engaged in running various educat was engaged in running various educational institutions including ional institutions including medical college and engineering college etc. A search and seizure medical college and engineering college etc. A search and seizure medical college and engineering college etc. A search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at organizations related to the assessee was conducted at organizations related to the assessee was conducted at organizations related to the assessee. In consequence to the information p consequence to the information pertaining to the assessee fo ertaining to the assessee found during the course of search, during the course of search, the cases of the assessee were reopened cases of the assessee were reopened invoking section 153C of the Act. The search in the case of other invoking section 153C of the Act. The search in the case of other invoking section 153C of the Act. The search in the case of other entities was concluded on 29.07.2016 and therefore, assessment in entities was concluded on 29.07.2016 and therefore, assessment in entities was concluded on 29.07.2016 and therefore, assessment in the case of searched ed person were reopened for the period from were reopened for the period from assessment year 2011 assessment year 2011-12 to 2016-17. The information related to the 17. The information related to the assessee was passed on to the Assessing Officer of the assessee and assessee was passed on to the Assessing Officer of the assessee and assessee was passed on to the Assessing Officer of the assessee and relevant seized document was handed over to the Assessing Officer relevant seized document was handed over to the Assessing Officer relevant seized document was handed over to the Assessing Officer
Dr. DY Patil Education Society Dr. DY Patil Education Society 5 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 of the assessee on 18.09.2018. The Assessing Officer issued notice e on 18.09.2018. The Assessing Officer issued notice e on 18.09.2018. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153C of the Act in respect of assessment year 2011 u/s 153C of the Act in respect of assessment year 2011 u/s 153C of the Act in respect of assessment year 2011-12 to 2016- 17. The present two appeals before us are pertaining to the 17. The present two appeals before us are pertaining to the 17. The present two appeals before us are pertaining to the assessment year 2011 assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The assessment The assessments were completed u/s 153 completed u/s 153C of the Act on 27.12.2018 for both the of the Act on 27.12.2018 for both the assessment years under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A), though assessment years under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A), though assessment years under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A), though uphold the validity of assessment/reassessment u/s 153C of the Act, uphold the validity of assessment/reassessment u/s 153C of the Act, uphold the validity of assessment/reassessment u/s 153C of the Act, however, allowed relief on merit. Aggrieved however, allowed relief on merit. Aggrieved, the Revenue and the Revenue and assessee are before us by wa are before us by way of respective grounds, y of respective grounds, in their appeal/cross-objection. objection.
The Ld. DR submitted that appeals by the Assessing Officer The Ld. DR submitted that appeals by the Assessing Officer The Ld. DR submitted that appeals by the Assessing Officer have been filed with delay of two days, which is covered under the filed with delay of two days, which is covered under the filed with delay of two days, which is covered under the extended period of limitation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court extended period of limitation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court extended period of limitation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order dated 10.04.2020 in 10.04.2020 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee . The Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not object to condonation of delay of two days. We find that did not object to condonation of delay of two days. We find that did not object to condonation of delay of two days. We find that Dr. DY Patil Education Society Dr. DY Patil Education Society 6 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 appeals filed by the Revenue are within the extended period allow appeals filed by the Revenue are within the extended period allow appeals filed by the Revenue are within the extended period allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) in view of the Covid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) in view of the Covid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) in view of the Covid Pandemic and hence, appeals are admitted for adjudication. Pandemic and hence, appeals are admitted for adjudication. Pandemic and hence, appeals are admitted for adjudication.
The Ld. Counsel of the assssee has filed an application of The Ld. Counsel of the assssee has filed an application of The Ld. Counsel of the assssee has filed an application of additional ground, which is reproduced as under: additional ground, which is reproduced as under:
The Ld. AO has erred in law an d in facts is not n law an d in facts is not appreciating that the impugned assessment ought to have been appreciating that the impugned assessment ought to have been appreciating that the impugned assessment ought to have been made u/s 153A of the Act and not u/s 143(3) of the Act and made u/s 153A of the Act and not u/s 143(3) of the Act and made u/s 153A of the Act and not u/s 143(3) of the Act and therefore the assessment made by the AO is bad in law and therefore the assessment made by the AO is bad in law and therefore the assessment made by the AO is bad in law and invalid. invalid. 6. We have heard submissions of the partie We have heard submissions of the parties on the issue of s on the issue of admissibility of additional ground. In view of the decision of Hon’ble additional ground. In view of the decision of Hon’ble additional ground. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court in the case of NTPC v. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), NTPC v. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), being legal issue raised and no fresh investigation of fact required, the legal issue raised and no fresh investigation of fact required, the legal issue raised and no fresh investigation of fact required, the additional ground is admitted for additional ground is admitted for adjudication.
Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that under the Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that under the Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that under the provisions of section 153C provisions of section 153C of the Act, the six years which could have which could have Dr. DY Patil Education Society Dr. DY Patil Education Society 7 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 been reopened are six years prior to the year in which books of six years prior to the year in which books of six years prior to the year in which books of account or seized documents are handed over account or seized documents are handed over to the Assessing to the Assessing Officer of the assessee of the assessee by the Assessing Officer of the Assessing Officer of the searched person. It was submitted that since the seized material was handed person. It was submitted that since the seized material was handed person. It was submitted that since the seized material was handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee on 18.09.2018 and over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee on 18.09.2018 and over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee on 18.09.2018 and therefore, the relevant therefore, the relevant six assessment year u/s 153C could have r u/s 153C could have been assessment year 2013 been assessment year 2013-14 to 2018-19. The Ld.
The Ld. CIT(A) after detailed finding rejected the contention of the assessee observing as detailed finding rejected the contention of the assessee observing as detailed finding rejected the contention of the assessee observing as under :
“7.2.1 I have already considered this aspect while adjudicating a 7.2.1 I have already considered this aspect while adjudicating a 7.2.1 I have already considered this aspect while adjudicating a similar ground raised by the similar ground raised by the assessee in AY 2017-18, as against 18, as against assessment order passed us 143(3) of the Act, where the plea of the assessment order passed us 143(3) of the Act, where the plea of the assessment order passed us 143(3) of the Act, where the plea of the assessee was that the said order for AY 2017 assessee was that the said order for AY 2017-18 should have been 18 should have been passed us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) as the six assessment years in this case, passed us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) as the six assessment years in this case, passed us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) as the six assessment years in this case, if considered fr if considered from the date of receipt of seized material would be om the date of receipt of seized material would be 2013-14 to 2018 14 to 2018-19. After considering the submissions of the assessee and the relevant After considering the submissions of the assessee and the relevant After considering the submissions of the assessee and the relevant judicial pronouncements on this issue, I have already held that the judicial pronouncements on this issue, I have already held that the judicial pronouncements on this issue, I have already held that the six assessment years for which the notices us 153C six assessment years for which the notices us 153C were required to were required to be issued in this case are AYs 2011 be issued in this case are AYs 2011-12 to Dr. DY Patil Education Society Dr. DY Patil Education Society 8 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022
2016-17. The aforesaid findings as appearing in the appeal order 17. The aforesaid findings as appearing in the appeal order 17. The aforesaid findings as appearing in the appeal order dated 28.09.2021 in the case of the appellant for AY 2017 dated 28.09.2021 in the case of the appellant for AY 2017 dated 28.09.2021 in the case of the appellant for AY 2017-18 are reproduced as below for ready reference and for the sake of reproduced as below for ready reference and for the sake of reproduced as below for ready reference and for the sake of completeness:
"7.2.1. I have considered the submissions of the appellant, the "7.2.1. I have considered the submissions of the appellant, the "7.2.1. I have considered the submissions of the appellant, the provisions of the Act and judicial decisions relied upon by the provisions of the Act and judicial decisions relied upon by the provisions of the Act and judicial decisions relied upon by the appellant and other judicial pronouncements as applicable to the appellant and other judicial pronouncements as applicable to the appellant and other judicial pronouncements as applicable to the issue at hand. On perusal of the impugned assessment or issue at hand. On perusal of the impugned assessment or issue at hand. On perusal of the impugned assessment order, it is evident that the learned AO in the case of assessee has proceeded evident that the learned AO in the case of assessee has proceeded evident that the learned AO in the case of assessee has proceeded with issuing notices for the six assessment years immediately with issuing notices for the six assessment years immediately with issuing notices for the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted in the aforesaid cases which the search was conducted in the aforesaid cases which the search was conducted in the aforesaid cases of the searched persons as the date of search noted in the assessment searched persons as the date of search noted in the assessment searched persons as the date of search noted in the assessment order is 27.07.2016, which was concluded on 29.07.2016. order is 27.07.2016, which was concluded on 29.07.2016.
7.2.2. However, the contention raised by the assessee before me vide 7.2.2. However, the contention raised by the assessee before me vide 7.2.2. However, the contention raised by the assessee before me vide the aforesaid ground is that the Id. AO should have issued no the aforesaid ground is that the Id. AO should have issued no the aforesaid ground is that the Id. AO should have issued notice us 153C for AY 2017 153C for AY 2017-18 as well since, the date of search for 18 as well since, the date of search for computation of six previous assessment years would be the date on computation of six previous assessment years would be the date on computation of six previous assessment years would be the date on which the seized document was handed over to the Id. AO which is which the seized document was handed over to the Id. AO which is which the seized document was handed over to the Id. AO which is 18.09.2018 in this case. The contention of the assessee in 18.09.2018 in this case. The contention of the assessee in this regard this regard is that as per the provisions of Section 153C(1) r.w.s.153A of the Act, is that as per the provisions of Section 153C(1) r.w.s.153A of the Act, is that as per the provisions of Section 153C(1) r.w.s.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer can initiate assessment proceedings for six the Assessing Officer can initiate assessment proceedings for six the Assessing Officer can initiate assessment proceedings for six proceeding years prior to the date of search by issue of notice Us proceeding years prior to the date of search by issue of notice Us proceeding years prior to the date of search by issue of notice Us 153C of the Act and in terms of the fir 153C of the Act and in terms of the first proviso to Section st proviso to Section 153C of the Act, for the purpose of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act, the the Act, for the purpose of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act, the the Act, for the purpose of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act, the reference to the date of search in Section 153A of the Act shall be reference to the date of search in Section 153A of the Act shall be reference to the date of search in Section 153A of the Act shall be the date on which the Assessing Officer of the other person has the date on which the Assessing Officer of the other person has the date on which the Assessing Officer of the other person has Dr. DY Patil Education Society Dr. DY Patil Education Society 9 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 received the books of accoun received the books of account or documents or assets seized etc t or documents or assets seized etc from the Assessing Officer of the person searched. from the Assessing Officer of the person searched. Placing reliance Placing reliance on the judicial decisions referred to in the submissions of the on the judicial decisions referred to in the submissions of the on the judicial decisions referred to in the submissions of the assessee, as reproduced previously, it was claimed that the date of assessee, as reproduced previously, it was claimed that the date of assessee, as reproduced previously, it was claimed that the date of receiving of books o receiving of books of account or documents in the case of Assessing f account or documents in the case of Assessing Officer of the assessee concerned would be the date of recording of Officer of the assessee concerned would be the date of recording of Officer of the assessee concerned would be the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the person searched and the date on which satisfaction by the AO of the person searched and the date on which satisfaction by the AO of the person searched and the date on which such books of accounts or documents were handed over to the such books of accounts or documents were handed over to the such books of accounts or documents were handed over to the Assessing Officer of the third person. As the books of account and ficer of the third person. As the books of account and ficer of the third person. As the books of account and other documents were noted to have been received on 18.09.2018, other documents were noted to have been received on 18.09.2018, other documents were noted to have been received on 18.09.2018, and the AO had noted his satisfaction on the same date as AO of the and the AO had noted his satisfaction on the same date as AO of the and the AO had noted his satisfaction on the same date as AO of the assessee and issued notices us 153C on 19.09.2018, the assessment assessee and issued notices us 153C on 19.09.2018, the assessment assessee and issued notices us 153C on 19.09.2018, the assessment years for which the notice us. 153C of the Act should have been rs for which the notice us. 153C of the Act should have been rs for which the notice us. 153C of the Act should have been issued are A.Y. 2013 issued are A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2018-19. It was, therefore, contended 19. It was, therefore, contended that the Id. AO should have issued notice issued us 153C of the Act that the Id. AO should have issued notice issued us 153C of the Act that the Id. AO should have issued notice issued us 153C of the Act for the year under reference which is AY 2017 for the year under reference which is AY 2017-18 and ther 18 and therefore, the assessment completed us 143(3) of the Act is without any assessment completed us 143(3) of the Act is without any assessment completed us 143(3) of the Act is without any jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed.”
We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue-in- We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The only dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The only dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The only limited issue in addition dditional ground of the assessee is whether the assessment year for reassessment assessment year for reassessment u/s 153C of the Act u/s 153C of the Act are to be reckoned as six years prior to the year in which search has taken six years prior to the year in which search has taken six years prior to the year in which search has taken place or six years prior to the year in which seized material is place or six years prior to the year in which seized material is place or six years prior to the year in which seized material is Dr. DY Patil Education Society Dr. DY Patil Education Society 10 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 received by the Assessing Officer of the other person. We find that e Assessing Officer of the other person. We find that e Assessing Officer of the other person. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. RRJ Securities 380 CIT v. RRJ Securities 380 ITR 612 has held that for the purpose of section 153C of the Act has held that for the purpose of section 153C of the Act has held that for the purpose of section 153C of the Act, six years has to be reckoned as six years prior to the date of receipt of years has to be reckoned as six years prior to the date of receipt of years has to be reckoned as six years prior to the date of receipt of seized material by the Assessing Officer of the other person. The seized material by the Assessing Officer of the other person. The seized material by the Assessing Officer of the other person. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court are reproduced as under: relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court are reproduced as under: relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court are reproduced as under:
“24. As discussed hereinbefore, in terms of pro 24. As discussed hereinbefore, in terms of proviso to Section 153C Section 153C of the Act, a reference to the date of the search under the second proviso the Act, a reference to the date of the search under the second proviso the Act, a reference to the date of the search under the second proviso to Section 153A Section 153A of the Act has to be construed as the date of handing te of handing over of assets/documents belonging to the Assessee (being the person over of assets/documents belonging to the Assessee (being the person over of assets/documents belonging to the Assessee (being the person other than the one searched) to the AO having jurisdiction to assess other than the one searched) to the AO having jurisdiction to assess other than the one searched) to the AO having jurisdiction to assess the said Assessee. Further proceedings, by virtue of the said Assessee. Further proceedings, by virtue of Section 153C(1) Section 153C(1) of the Act, would have to be in accordance with the Act, would have to be in accordance with Section 153A Section 153A of the Act and the reference to the date of search would have to be construed as and the reference to the date of search would have to be construed as and the reference to the date of search would have to be construed as the reference to the date of recording of sat the reference to the date of recording of satisfaction. It would follow isfaction. It would follow that the six assessment years for which assessments/reassessments that the six assessment years for which assessments/reassessments that the six assessment years for which assessments/reassessments could be made under could be made under Section 153C of the Act would also have to be of the Act would also have to be construed with reference to the date of handi construed with reference to the date of handing over of ng over of assets/documents to the AO of the Assessee. In this case, it would be assets/documents to the AO of the Assessee. In this case, it would be assets/documents to the AO of the Assessee. In this case, it would be the date of the recording of satisfaction under the date of the recording of satisfaction under Section 153C Section 153C of the Act, i.e., 8th September, 2010. In this view, the assessments made in Act, i.e., 8th September, 2010. In this view, the assessments made in Act, i.e., 8th September, 2010. In this view, the assessments made in respect of assessment year 2003 respect of assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05 would be beyond 05 would be beyond the period of six the period of six assessment years as reckoned with reference to the assessment years as reckoned with reference to the Dr. DY Patil Education Society Dr. DY Patil Education Society 11 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person. It the searched person. It is contended by the Revenue that the relevant six assessment years is contended by the Revenue that the relevant six assessment years is contended by the Revenue that the relevant six assessment years would be the assessment years prior to the assessment year relevant would be the assessment years prior to the assessment year relevant would be the assessment years prior to the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. If this to the previous year in which the search was conducted. If this to the previous year in which the search was conducted. If this interpretation as canvassed by t interpretation as canvassed by the Revenue is accepted, it would he Revenue is accepted, it would mean that whereas in case of a person searched, assessments in mean that whereas in case of a person searched, assessments in mean that whereas in case of a person searched, assessments in relation to six previous years preceding the year in which the search relation to six previous years preceding the year in which the search relation to six previous years preceding the year in which the search takes place can be reopened but in case of any other person, who is takes place can be reopened but in case of any other person, who is takes place can be reopened but in case of any other person, who is not searched but his a not searched but his assets are seized from the searched person, the ssets are seized from the searched person, the period for which the assessments could be reopened would be much period for which the assessments could be reopened would be much period for which the assessments could be reopened would be much beyond the period of six years. This is so because the date of handing beyond the period of six years. This is so because the date of handing beyond the period of six years. This is so because the date of handing over of assets/documents of a person, other than the searched over of assets/documents of a person, other than the searched over of assets/documents of a person, other than the searched person, to the AO would be subsequent to the date of the search. This, the AO would be subsequent to the date of the search. This, the AO would be subsequent to the date of the search. This, in our view, would be contrary to the scheme of in our view, would be contrary to the scheme of Section 153C(1) Section 153C(1) of the Act, which construes the date of receipt of assets and documents the Act, which construes the date of receipt of assets and documents the Act, which construes the date of receipt of assets and documents by the AO of the Assessee (other than one searched) as the date of the O of the Assessee (other than one searched) as the date of the O of the Assessee (other than one searched) as the date of the search on the Assessee. The rationale appears to be that whereas in search on the Assessee. The rationale appears to be that whereas in search on the Assessee. The rationale appears to be that whereas in the case of a searched person the AO of the searched person assumes the case of a searched person the AO of the searched person assumes the case of a searched person the AO of the searched person assumes possession of seized assets/documents on search of the As possession of seized assets/documents on search of the As possession of seized assets/documents on search of the Assessee; the seized assets/documents belonging to a person other seized assets/documents belonging to a person other than a searched than a searched person come into possession of the AO of that person only after the person come into possession of the AO of that person only after the person come into possession of the AO of that person only after the AO of the searched person is satisfied that the assets/documents do AO of the searched person is satisfied that the assets/documents do AO of the searched person is satisfied that the assets/documents do not belong to the searched person. Thus, not belong to the searched person. Thus, the date on which the AO of the date on which the AO of the person other than the one searched assumes the possession of the the person other than the one searched assumes the possession of the the person other than the one searched assumes the possession of the seized assets would be the relevant date for applying the provisions seized assets would be the relevant date for applying the provisions seized assets would be the relevant date for applying the provisions of Section 153A Section 153A of the Act. We, therefore, accept the contention that fore, accept the contention that in any view of the matter, assessment for AY 2003 in any view of the matter, assessment for AY 2003-04 and AY 2004 04 and AY 2004-05 were outside the scope of were outside the scope of Section 153C of the Act and the AO had no of the Act and the AO had no Dr. DY Patil Education Society Dr. DY Patil Education Society 12 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 jurisdiction to make an assessment jurisdiction to make an assessment of the Assessee's income for that of the Assessee's income for that year.” 8.1 Before us, no contrary decision has been brought Before us, no contrary decision has been brought on record by Before us, no contrary decision has been brought the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). The Ld. Counsel also the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). The Ld. Counsel also the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). The Ld. Counsel also submitted that said decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been further confirme confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of d by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Container Corporation of India and Ors [Civil Appeal No. CIT v. Container Corporation of India and Ors [Civil Appeal No. CIT v. Container Corporation of India and Ors [Civil Appeal No. 8900/2012 dated 24.08.2018 8900/2012 dated 24.08.2018.
8.2 The issue-in-dispute involved in dispute involved in additional ground additional ground before us is identical to the issue which has been decided by identical to the issue which has been decided by the Hon’ble Delhi the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra), therefore, High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra), therefore, High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra), therefore, respectfully following the finding of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court respectfully following the finding of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court respectfully following the finding of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (supra), we hold that in the case of the assessee six years for , we hold that in the case of the assessee six years for , we hold that in the case of the assessee six years for assessment u/s 153C has to be reckoned assessment u/s 153C has to be reckoned are assessment year 2013 assessment year 2013- 14 to assessment year 2018 14 to assessment year 2018-19. Therefore, the assessment 19. Therefore, the assessment proceedings in these two years completed u/s 153C of the Act proceedings in these two years completed u/s 153C of the Act proceedings in these two years completed u/s 153C of the Act are Dr. DY Patil Education Society Dr. DY Patil Education Society 13 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 not accordance with law not accordance with law and accordingly we quash the assessment uash the assessment proceedings for AY 2011 proceedings for AY 2011-12 & 2012-13.
8.3 Since, we have already quashed the assessment proceedings in Since, we have already quashed the assessment proceedings in Since, we have already quashed the assessment proceedings in the appeal before us in AY 2011 the appeal before us in AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 3, therefore, the issues raised in the appeal of the Revenue are rendered only raised in the appeal of the Revenue are rendered only raised in the appeal of the Revenue are rendered only academic and we are not adjudicating upon academic and we are not adjudicating upon and same are dismissed same are dismissed as infructuous.
8.4 The facts and circumstances in the AY 2012 The facts and circumstances in the AY 2012-13 13 being identical to AY 2010-11, the the cross objection of the assessee is allowed oss objection of the assessee is allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, both the appeal In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed of the Revenue are dismissed whereas cross-objections of the assessee are allowed. objections of the assessee are allowed. objections of the assessee are allowed.