Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed four appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders quashing assessments under Section 153C. The issue revolved around determining the relevant assessment year for these Section 153C proceedings, which stemmed from a search action on a group of cases.
Held
The Tribunal held that for third-party assessments under Section 153C, the relevant assessment year is determined by the date of handing over of seized records to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, not the date of the search itself. Precedents were relied upon to support this.
Key Issues
Determination of relevant assessment year for Section 153C proceedings in the case of a third party, based on the date of search versus the date of handing over seized material.
Sections Cited
153C, 143(3), 153A
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: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These Revenue’s four appeals & 4190/Del/2025 (M/s. Om Logistics Ltd.) and & 4192/Del/2025 (M/s. Rawalwasia Infotech Pvt. Ltd.) along with the former assessee’s as many cross objections C.O. No. 180 & 181/Del/2025, for assessment years 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12 and 2014-15 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s orders, all dated 28.03.2025, having DINs and orders no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1075193160(1), ITBA/APL/M/ 250/2024-25/1075194091(1), ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1075196543(1) and ITBA/APL/M/ 250/2024-25/1075196956(1) involving proceedings under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
We note at the outset that the Revenue herein raises its identical substantive grounds in all of its instant four appeals that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in quashing the impugned section 153C assessments in question.
2 | P a g e & 4190/Del/2025; C.O. Nos. 180 & 181/Del/2025; & 4192/Del/2025;
We make it clear that all these Revenue’s instant four cases emanate from section 153C assessments identically framed by the learned Assessing Officer in furtherance to the department’s search action dated 18.10.2019 in M/s. Alankit group of cases followed by issuance of section 153C notice(s) of 02.12.2022.
We proceed to decide the instant first and foremost legal issue herein between the parties. There is hardly any dispute that the date of search herein happens to be 18.10.2019. And that the date of handing over of the seized material to the assessees’ Assessing Officer is 16.02.2022 i.e. in previous year 2022-23 relevant to assessment year 2023-24 ending on 31st March, 2024. It is in this clinching factual backdrop that the Revenue vehemently contends before us that we ought to go by the date of search itself for computing the “relevant assessment year(s)”; as the case may be covered under section 153C r.w.s 153A of the Act.
We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant first and foremost legal ground. We again deem it appropriate to reiterate the fact at the cost of repetition that the relevant proceedings herein in case of assessees/respondents are under section 153C of the Act as they happen to be a “third” person(s) than the searched assessee. That 3 | P a g e & 4190/Del/2025; C.O. Nos. 180 & 181/Del/2025; & 4192/Del/2025; being the case, various recent landmark judicial precedents i.e. PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd., (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh (2024) 465 ITR 101 (SC) have already settled the issue that in such an instance, the date of search is that of handing over of records to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of a third party under section 153C(1) 1st proviso only which comes to be as 16.02.2022 wherein the relevant assessment year 2023-24 ends on 31st March, 2024.
Learned CIT(DR) at this stage submits that one of the assessment years involved in herein is AY 2014-15. We note that the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion has made it clear in para 17 that going by the satisfaction note u/s 153C, the assessee’s income falls well short of Rs.50 lakhs as per Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra.). We thus uphold the learned CIT(A)’s action quashing the impugned assessments in these facts and circumstances. All other pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.