Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed three appeals against a common order of the CIT(A) which quashed assessments made under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) for AYs 2010-11, 2013-14, and 2015-16. The CIT(A) held that the assessments for AYs 2010-11 and 2013-14 were time-barred, exceeding the ten-year statutory limitation, and the assessment for AY 2015-16 was invalid as the income escaping assessment was below the pecuniary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. It relied on the Delhi High Court's landmark judgment in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101, which established that the ten-year limitation period for Section 153C assessments is counted from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year of the search, and also upheld the applicability of the pecuniary limit for income escaping assessment.
Key Issues
Whether assessments under Section 153C were time-barred due to the ten-year limitation period based on the date of search/satisfaction, and whether one assessment was invalid for not meeting the Rs. 50 lakh pecuniary limit for income escaping assessment.
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:
These Revenue’s three appeals to 4124/Del/2025, for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2015-16, arise against the CIT(A)-26, New Delhi’s common order dated 27.02.2025 in case Nos. 26/10063/2009-10, 26/10145/2012-13 and 26/10653/2014-15, in proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
2.1 Delay of 27 days each in filing of appeals for A.Ys. 2010- 11 and 2015-16 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 all the three section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) assessments herein; as not sustainable in law, for the precise reason that the former twin assessment years 2010-11 and 2013-14 fall beyond the statutory limitation 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) and in the last assessment year 2016-17, for want of the relevant pecuniary limit of Rs.50,00,000/-, respectively.
This is what leaves the Revenue aggrieved who has filed it’s instant three cases before the tribunal.
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 three assessments by holding that the former twin assessment years 2010-11 and 2013-14 fall 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, and, for the last assessment year 2015-16, he has wrongly held it as null and void for the reason that income escaping assessment is less than Rs.50,00,000/-; as the case may be.
We find no merit in either of the Revenue’s instant twin 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 all these three assessments in very terms. The Revenue fails in it’s substantive ground raised in these three appeals therefore.
All other pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic.