Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which quashed an assessment for AY 2012-13, framed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) held that the assessment year fell beyond the statutory ten-assessment-year period, considering the search date (18.10.2019) and subsequent satisfaction recordings by the Assessing Officers.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It confirmed that the ten-year period for Section 153C assessments, as per Section 153A(1) Explanation-I, is counted 'from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted,' and AY 2012-13 fell outside this period. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment for AY 2012-13, framed under Section 153C, was time-barred due to falling outside the statutory ten-assessment-year period, as determined by the dates of search and satisfaction recordings in light of Section 153A(1) Explanation-I.
Sections Cited
153C, 143(3), 153C(1), 153A(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Years 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)-26, New Delhi’s order dated 27.02.2025 in case No. 26/10153/2011-12, in proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Delay of 27 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It transpires during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A) herein has quashed section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) assessment herein; as not sustainable in law, for the precise reason that the impugned assessment year fall beyond the statutory time period of ten assessment years as on the date of search, which is to be calculated as on the date of necessary satisfaction to be recorded by the learned Assessing Officer under 1st proviso to section 153C(1) of the Act. We wish to make it clear that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in question on 18.10.2019 which inter alia followed the searched party’s Assessing Officer’s section 153C satisfaction on 24.06.2022; who handed over the seized material on the very date to the jurisdictional assessing authority. And that this latter Assessing Officer recorded his satisfaction on 13.10.2023. The Revenue could hardly dispute in this factual backdrop that going by the above date of handing over of the seized material to the assessee’s Assessing Officer is to be treated as the date of search itself u/s 153C(1) 1st proviso. And that the relevant ten assessment years ought to be counted u/s 153A(1) Explanation-I as i.e. “from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search conducted or a requisition is made” does not cover the assessment year 2012-13 herein.
JFC Finance (India) Ltd. 5. Learned CIT-DR vehemently reiterates the Revenue’s stand that the CIT(A) herein has erred in law and on facts in quashing the impugned assessment as falling beyond the statutory framework of ten assessment years; to be counted from the end of the assessment year as on the date of recording of satisfaction.
We find no merit in the Revenue’s relevant submissions. This is for the precise reason that hon’ble jurisdictional high court recent landmark decision in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del.); as followed in the CIT(A) lower appellate discussion, has already settled both these issues in the assessee’s favour and against the department thereby holding that going by section 153A(1) Explanation-I as applicable in an assessment to be framed u/s 153C of the Act, has to count ten years “from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in the search is conducted...........”. We thus find merit in the assessee’s vehement submissions supporting the learned CIT(A) impugned lower appellate discussion quashing the assessment in very terms. The Revenue fails in it’s substantive ground raised in the appeal therefore.
All other pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic.