AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 26.09.2025 of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal)-25, New Delhi-110055, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. PCIT(A)] arising out of the Order dated 20.02.2024 passed under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by Assessing Officer, ACIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“a. 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 Ojijus 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?
b. 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?
c. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CITI(A),following the direction of Hon bile High Court was justified in holding that block period for assessment u/ 1530 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 1530, even when this Proviso cannot override the main provision of Section 1530(1), which clearly mentions that calculation of block period has to be done from the year of search?
d. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A), following the direction of Hon'ble High Court was justified in holding that block periods for assessment u/ 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 6AYs and 10AYs 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"?
e. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble High Court and consequently, the Ld. CITIA) justified in relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jasjit Singh (2023 SCC Online SC 1265) and of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2015 SCC Online Del 13085), even though the facts of the instant case are different from that of Jasjit Singh case and RRJ Securities case, since the decisions rendered by the Court in Jasjit Singh as well as in RRJ Securities had dealt with a pre-2017 position (i.e. for search conducted before 1st April, 2017) and hence are clearly distinguishable?
f. That the order of the CIT (A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law.
g. That the appellant craves to add, amend, after or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
Brief facts are that the assessee had filed her original return for A.Y. 2014-15 on 26.03.2015 declaring income of Rs. 5,87,850/-. Subsequently, a search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in M/s Alankit Group of cases on 18.10.2019. During the course of which certain incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found and seized.
Thereafter, the AO of the searched party sent the seized incriminating material to the AO of the assessee on 24.06.2022 pursuant to which satisfaction u/s 153C was recorded by him on 30.09.2022 which was approval by the PCIT on 21.10.2022 and the notice u/s 153C was issued to the assessee on 10.11.2022.
During the course of proceedings, the AO issued a show-cause notice after considering the reply of the assessee with regard to the accommodation entries of Rs. 5,06,877/- taken by her from the searched entity and, finalized the assessment after making an addition of the entire amount u/s 69 of the Act. Further, an addition of Rs. 15,206/- was also made u/s 69C of the Act on account of commission paid for obtaining the alleged accommodation entries.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 26.09.2025, the appeal was allowed with the following observations:
“17.From the above, it is seen that the aggregate of the income having escaped assessment for the "relevant assessment years', i.e. AY 2014-15 (FY 2013-14), AY 2015-16 (FY 2014-15) and AY 2016-17 (FY 2015-16) as per the satisfaction note recorded falls short of Rs. 50 lakhs.
17.1Following the ratio of decision as per the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare (supra), the satisfaction note does not show that the income, represented in the form of asset which has escaped assessment, amounted to or was likely to amount to Rs. 50 Lakhs or more in the 'relevant assessment year' or in aggregate in the 'relevant assessment years' in the case of the appellant under consideration.
18.Thus, the condition spelt out in the statute and as interpreted by the Hon'ble Courts for permitting reopening beyond six years was not fulfilled in the instant case. The case of the impugned A.Y 2014-15 falls beyond the period of six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the satisfaction note was drawn/documents handed over/notice u/s 153C issued (date of satisfaction note -24.06.2022 and date of notice u/s 153C-10,11.2022), viz. AY 2023-24. The period of six years that could be reopened by the AO thus terminates with the AY 2017-18. The contention of the appellant therefore bears merit.
19.Relying on the above-mentioned case laws and respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd (supra), it is seen that A.Y. 2014-15 is not covered within six AYs as per section 153C of the Act and the condition/s for assessing it as part of the relevant assessment year's was not existent. The notice issued for the instant assessment year, AY 2014-15 would thus fall beyond the ambit of six AYs' as provided under section 153C read with section 153A, and hence the impugned assessment order dated 20.02.2024 passed u/s 153C of the Act for the instant AY in pursuance of such notice would not survive, having no legs to stand, and is thus annulled.”
Aggrieved by the decision of the CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the deemed date of search u/s 153C in this case is 24.06.2022 i.e. the date of handing over of seized material to the AO of the assessee as per the proviso to section 153C(1) of the Act. Further, the amount involved which is alleged to have escaped assessment is Rs. 5,06,877/- for the year under consideration, based on which notice u/s 153C of the Act has been issued. Since the condition regarding the quantum involved being more than 50 lakhs for issuing notice u/s 153C for an assessment year beyond 6 years but before 10 years is not satisfied, the CIT(A) has rightly annulled the notice and the order u/s 153C of the Act.
In view of above factual and legal position, we find that the CIT(A) has passed a well -reasoned and speaking order and no interference is called for in the same.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed.