DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. SUN SATELLITE TOWERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

“13.3 It is thus seen that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts considered in the case of Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd (Supra) [which also refers to the same Search and seizure operation on tire Alankit group]. In the instant case of the appellant under consideration, notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the appellant on 29.08.2022, i,e. in the FY 2022-23 relevant to the AY 2023-24. Accordingly, on the aforesaid facts in the instant case of the appellant, following the judgement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, it is held that the period of ten AYs' would commence being counted w.e.f. the AY 2023-24, which, by backward counting, would terminate in AY 2014-15. Accordingly, following the aforesaid judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd (supra), it is held that notice issued on 29.08.2022 for the instant assessment year, AY 2011-12, would fall beyond the ambit often AYs' as provided under section 153C read with section 153A. cod hence the impugned assessment order dated 06.03.2024 passed u/s 153C of the Act for the instant AY 2011-12 in pursuance of such notice would not survive, having no legs to stand, and is thus annulled, being beyond the period of 10 years. 13.4 As it is held that the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to assess the appellant’s case for the A.Y 2011-12, therefore, all the other grounds raised by the appellant are rendered academic in nature, and hence not required to be adjudicated upon. There is hence no adjudication on merits in this case.” 2.2 Aggrieved with this order the Revenue has approached the ITAT with the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT, Central- 1, Delhi vs Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 52 of 2024), even when the Revenue has filed a SLP against this decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized, by the jurisdictional AO of the non- searched person or from the date of issue of Notice u/s 153C of the Act and not from the date of initiation of search? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified was justified in holding that block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized, by the jurisdictional AO of the non- searched person or from the date of issue of Notice issued u/s 153C of the Act and not from the date of initiation of search by relying on First Proviso to Section 153C, even when this Proviso cannot override the main provision of Section 153C(1), which clearly mentions that calculation of block period has to be done from the year of search? 4. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in relying was justified in holding that block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Income- tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized or date of Notice issued u/s 153C of the Act, by the jurisdictional AO of the non- searched person, even when the position of law is clarified after the amendment introduced by Finance Act, 2017, that the block period of 6 AYs and 10 AYs as mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 153C and Section 153A have same meaning and have to be calculated from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted.

5. That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing?”

3. Before us the Ld. DR relied on the findings given in the assessment order and stated that the Ld. CIT(A) had fallen in an error in relying on the case of Ojjus Medicare (supra) even when the Department has not accepted the same and an SLP is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Ld. DR pointed out that as per ground no.2 it needs to be decided whether the limitation for the block period would have to be calculated from the date of issue of notice u/s 153C or actually from the date of receipt of books of account/assets seized by the Jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person.

3.1 The Ld. AR, on the other hand, filed a synopsis through which the limitation for block year has been calculated keeping in view the case of Ojjus Medicare (supra). The Ld. AR placed before us the following computation of assessment years:

“1. The assessment in the case of the assessee was completed by the AO u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 06.03.2024 by making additions of Rs.1,50,00,000/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained credits, Rs.1,50,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money and Rs.9,00,000/- u/s 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure. Aggrieved from the order of the AO, the assessee went into appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the CIT(A) has passed an order deleting the additions made by the AO.

Particulars Date Date of search in case of Alankit Group 18.10.2019 Date on which satisfaction note was recorded 08.08.2022 by the AO of the assessee (PB Page no.1) Notice u/s 153C (PB Page No.2) 29.08.2022

Following the order of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 Versus Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., the date of commencement for computation of the ten- year block periods under Section 153C is the date of receipt of the books of account, documents, or assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person (i.e. the appellant).

Computation of 10 years block No. of year AY 2023-24 1 AY 2022-23 2 AY 2021-22 3 AY 2020-21 4 AY 2019-20 5 AY 2018-19 6 AY 2017-18 7 AY 2016-17 8 AY 2015-16 9 AY 2014-15 10 From the above, it has been established that the search date will be considered as 08.08.2022 for the purpose of computing the 10- year block period under Section 153C of the Act i.e. from A.Y. 2023-24 to AY 2014-15. Therefore, AY 2011-12 falls beyond the block period of 10 years, accordingly, the notice issued u/s 153C for the AY 2011-12 is invalid and liable to be quashed.”

“Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment of any or person (Block assessment) - Assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 - Whether first proviso to section 153C, and which has been consistently recognized to also embody commencement point for reckoning six or ten assessment years’, shifts relevant date from date of initiation of search or a requisition made to date of receipt of books of account or documents and assets seized by jurisdictional Assessing Officer of non-searched person - Held, yes - Whether furthermore where date of handing over of documents was not available, date of issuance of satisfaction Note by Assessing Officer under section 153C would be pertinent for purpose of First Proviso to section 153C - Held, yes - Whether significant difference between computation of relevant assessment year for identification of six assessment years and to construct a block of ten assessment years is that while six assessment years’ hinge upon phrase “immediately preceding” assessment year pertaining to search year, ten assessment years’ are liable to be computed or reckoned from end of assessment year relevant to year of search - Held, yes - Whether thus, in instant case where satisfaction note were issued between 1-4-2021 and 31-3-2022, relevant assessment year would be 2022-23 and assessment years’ 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 would clearly fall outside block period of ten assessment years as provided under section 153C read with section 153A - Held, yes [Paras 85, 86, 96 and 97] [In favour of assessee] 4.1 In the light of a clear judgment in this regard by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it deserves to be held that the present assessment (AY 2011- 12) is beyond the period for considering the block years. Accordingly, the assessment deserves to be struck down.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11.12.2025