“block assessment”

Search & SeizureSection 158BCSection 158BC4,282 judgments

The decision most relied on for block assessment is CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (380 ITR 612), cited in 689 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on block assessment

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.

380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court

689

citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

346 ITR 177 · 2012 · High Court

308

citing judgments

For a non-searched person under Section 153C, the relevant six assessment years are counted backward from the assessment year in which the search was conducted, as prescribed by the first proviso to Section 153C(1).

PCIT v. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd.

465 ITR 101 · 2024 · High Court

277

citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, the commencement point for calculating the six or ten assessment year block period is the date of issuing the Section 153C notice, or the date of the satisfaction note/handing over of books, as clarified by the first proviso to Section 153C(1).

Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT

289 ITR 341 · 2007 · Supreme Court

237

citing judgments

A block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act requires a prior search conducted under Section 132 or a requisition of documents/assets under Section 132A. This fundamental condition precedent applies to block assessments, including those concerning other persons under Section 158BD.

CIT v. Jasjit Singh

155 Taxmann.com 155 · 2023 · Supreme Court

235

citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C concerning a non-searched person, the relevant date for calculating the block of assessment years is the date on which the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of that person assumes possession of the seized material, not the date of the original search. This date determines the look-back period for reopening assessments under Section 153A read with 153C.

Rishabchand Bhansali v. Dy. CIT

267 ITR 577 · 2004 · High Court

202

citing judgments

The previous approval required for assessment orders under provisions like Section 158BG or Section 153D is an administrative power and an internal matter, not deciding the assessee's rights. A mere irregularity in granting such administrative approval does not vitiate the assessment order.

P.R. Metrani v. CIT

287 ITR 209 · 2006 · Supreme Court

187

citing judgments

Section 132 of the Income Tax Act is a self-contained code governing search and seizure operations. The books of accounts, documents, valuables, or statements recorded during a search can be used as evidence in any subsequent proceedings under the Act, and the section outlines the conditions for issuing warrants of authorization.

CIT (Central) v. Kabul Chawla

2015 SCC OnLine DEL 11555 · 2015 · Reported

186

citing judgments

No addition can be made in respect of a completed assessment in the absence of incriminating material, especially when considering the object and purpose of Section 153-A.

Judgments citing block assessment

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

wherein it was held that Tribunal cannot adjudicate upon issue relating to validity of search conducted under section 132 while disposing of appeal against block assessment. 6.1 Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Jewellers Vs. CIT, New Delhi (2017) 85 taxmann.com 361(SC) held that ... legal effect ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 34 of 115 is the assessment gets reopened. The block assessment roped in only the undisclosed income and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved, resulting in multiple assessments. Under Section 153A, however, the Assessing Officer

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

Shivam Developers, Godadra vs. ITO, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.76/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Shivam Developers, Vs. The Pr. Cit-2, 141, Khodiyar Residency, Surat. Godadra, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acffs4002D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 06/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2022

Section 115Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 40Section 69A

brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Sec. 158BH clearly provides that all other provisions of the Act would be applicable to block assessment. Thus, there is specific exclusion of no set off of brought forward losses and depreciation under s. 32(2) but no specific exclusion of eligible deduction under

A2 Jewels, Gujarat vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 487/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. A2 Jewels V. Acit - Central Circle – 1(3) 204, Spna Apartment Pratishtha Bhavan Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat - 395003 Pan: Aamfa7751J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

Shri Bhanwarlal Jain. Shri Bhawarlal Jain and a number of his associates/relatives/employees were covered u/s 132(1) of the Act. In the said block assessment made u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2008-09 to A.Y. 2014-15, it has been noted and documented that the nature

Indian Explosives Pvt. Ltd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kolkata

The appeal stands disposed of in terms of

ITAT/85/2022HC Calcutta03 Nov 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 26Th April, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sauyma Kejriwal, Adv. Ms. Ananya Routy, Adv. Ms. Pritha Basu, Adv. Ms. Ankita Agrahari, Adv …For Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Order Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Legal Issue Involved In The Instant Case Is The Scope Of Assessment Under Section 153A Of The Income Tax Act. The Legal Issue Which Has Been Raised By The Revenue Has Been Answered By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell [P] Ltd. Reported In [2023] 149 Taxmann.Com 399 [Sc]. The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Summarised The Legal Position In Paragraph 11 Of The Judgment & In Paragraph 13 The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Held That It Is An Agreement With A View Taken By The Delhi

Section 132Section 132ASection 153A

concluded as under: i] that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii] all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii] in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments

Mohammed Sherief vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/7/2019HC Kerala02 Nov 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: MOHAMMED SHERIEFFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

similar circumstances are present for consideration in the batch of appeals, hence are disposed of by this common judgment. The details of block assessment orders, years of assessment, and orders of the Authorities under the Act are stated as under: Sl. No. Assessment Year & date of Assessment Order of Commissioner ... notice dated 14.05.2007 refers to the search conducted at the business premises of E.Shamsudeen at Edappallykotta on 02.08.2006. Similar notices were issued, for the block assessment period 2004-05 to 2007-08. The Assessing Officer through Annexure- B order dated 30.12.2008, determined the tax and interest payable by the assessee

Lekshmi Traders vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/2/2018HC Kerala02 Nov 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: LEKSHMI TRADERSFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 132Section 158B

while explaining the purport of Chapter XIV-B of the Act, has observed that a search is the sine qua non for the block assessment; the special provisions are devised to operate in the distinct field of undisclosed income and are clearly in addition to the regular assessments covering ... from the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that a valid search under section 132 of the Act is a sine qua non for invoking block assessment proceedings under Chapter XIV-B. Further, according to section 158BD of the Act, the Assessing Officer must record his or her satisfaction that

Mohammed Sherief vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/2/2019HC Kerala02 Nov 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: MOHAMMED SHERIEFFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd., Raipur vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax-1, Raipur

ITA 55/RPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 55/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. Ward No.42, Building No.14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Chhattisgarh-492 001. Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. Revenue By :Shri P. K Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. AnanyaFor Respondent: Shri P. K Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

assessee before the Tribunal against the levy of penalty. In the appeal challenging the penalty order, the assessee challenged the validity of block assessment order which had determined the tax liability of the assessee on the basis of which penalty was levied subsequently. The revenue objected with respect ... Bombay High Court in the case of Jainarayan Babulal vs CIT, 170 ITR 399, the bench held as that if the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no question of levy of any penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the assessee

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6124/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

initiation of proceedings under proceedings under Section 153A, the legal effect is the assessment gets , the legal effect is the assessment gets reopened. The block assessment roped i reopened. The block assessment roped in only the undisclosed income and n only the undisclosed income and the regular assessment proceedings were

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6123/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Gokul Gems and Jewels Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 837/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. C.I.T. Vs. Gokul Gems & Jewels Central Circle 1(1), Private Limited Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aadcg0272G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21/12/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Both Facts & In Law. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated The Fact That During Search & Seizure Operation Conducted On 19.11.2013 Physical Cash Of Rs. 16,57,800/- Only Was Found In The Business Premises As Well As The Residential Premises Of The Directors & That The Directors & Their Family Members Did Not Disclose Availability Of The Balance Cash Of Rs. 1,71,59, 105/- .

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 69A

answers and whatever answers were all evasive and not the direct answers to the questions posted. Even during the course of proceedings of the block assessment, assessee has shown the same approach, instead of Page 3 of 10 ITA No 837 of 2018 Gokul Gems and Jewels P Ltd Hyderabad

Luxora Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1292/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Us Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of, Inter Alia, The Construction & Development Of Integrated Townships. The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 12Th December 2011 At A Total Income Of Rs 42,18,260. However, As A Result Of Search Operations Having Been Carried Out By The Income Tax Department On The Assessee & Its Associated Persons & Group Enterprises, The Assessee Was Called Upon To File A Fresh Return Under Section 153A, Which Was

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

conducted or requisition is made. The Assessing Officer is required to assess or reassess the total income of the aforesaid years. 10. Under the block assessment proceeding under Chapter XIV-B only the undisclosed income found during the search and seizure operation were required to be assessed and the regular

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Pilot Industries Limited

ITA/411/2022HC Delhi19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153A

cannot, on a standalone basis, without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations, empower the Assessing Officer to frame the block assessment. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgement is reproduced herein below: “7. The preliminary question under consideration before us is whether a statement under ... statement cannot, on a standalone basis, without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations, empower the AO to frame the block assessment. This court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd., has inter-alia held that: “38. Fifthly, statements recorded

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Pilot Industries Limited

ITA/413/2022HC Delhi19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153A

Shri Raoof R Dhanani, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on jurisdiction

ITA 3367/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-D.R

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

held that service of notice on the assessee under section 143(2) within the prescribed period of time is a prerequisite for framing the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court held that for determination of undisclosed income for a block period

Brainware Computers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 5(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals, being ITA nos

ITA 6108/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 68

facts in upholding the order of assessment, failing to appreciate that the proceedings for the instant assessment year do not form part of the block assessment and are out of the purview of section 153C of the IT Act, 1961 . 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both

Brainware Computers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 5(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals, being ITA nos

ITA 6107/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 68

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Pvt. Ltd., Koraput

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 83/CTK/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण) अऩीऱ सं/It(Ss)A Nos.04-06/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & Cross Objection Nos.24-26/Ctk/2021 (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A Nos.04-06/Ctk/2021) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) M M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Bhubaneswar Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.81-83/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & Cross Objection Nos.27-29/Ctk/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.81-83/Ctk/2021) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Vs Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Bhubaneswar Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aabcp 3276 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Jami Siva Sai, one of the directors of assesseeFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 153CSection 40A(3)

material available at time of original assessment. The observations of Hon'ble High Court in para-ll are reproduced as under: "10. Under the block assessment proceeding under Chapter XIV-B only the undisclosed income found during the search and seizure operation were required to be assessed and the regular

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Pvt. Ltd., Koraput

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 82/CTK/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Jami Siva Sai, one of the directors of assesseeFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 153CSection 40A(3)