AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 05-12-2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 arising out the assessment order dated 30.03-2024 u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (in short ‘the Act’).
The Revenue has raised the following grounds in the 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 filled a SLP against this decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court?
2.Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law., the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that 10 years block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have to be calculated from the relevant AY in which date of satisfaction note drawn or from the date of issue of Notice u/s 153C of the Act and not from the date of initiation of search even when Section 153C(1) of the Act clearly mentions that calculation of block period has to be done from the year of search?
3.Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law., the 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 satisfaction note drawan or date of Notice issued u/s 153C of the Act, even when the position of law is clarified after the amendment introduced by Finance Act, 2017 that the block period of 6 AYs 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?
4.That the order of the CIT(A) is perverse erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law.
5.That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.
6.That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.
The appeal is time barred by 2 days. The, Department has shown the sufficient cause not to file the within time. The delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication on merit.
The brief facts of the case are that original return of income was filed, by the assessee on 24-09-2013 declaring loss of Rs.16,96,537/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 18-10-2029 in the case of M/s Alankit Limited, Shri Alok Kumar Aggarwal, Sh. Ankit Agarwal, M/s Alankit Group. During the search proceedings some documents including digital data were found and seized. On perusal of the seized data/ documents it was found that certain documents and information contained therein pertains to the assessee. Thereafter, assessment was completed u/s 153C of the Act by assessing total income at Rs.1,05,43,393/- by making various additions. Aggrieved the order the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 05-12-2025 has allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that addition made by the AO, the condition as prescribed under the provision to Section 153 are not met. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed in his order as under:
12.3Accordingly based 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. AY 2023-24 which, by backward counting would terminate in AY 2014-15. Accordingly, respectfully following the aforesaid judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd. (Supra), it is held that notice issued on 10-05-2022 for the instant assessment year, AY 2013-14 would fall beyond the ambit of ten AYs’ as provided under section 153C read with section 153 A, and hence the impugned assessment order dated 30-03-2024 passed u/s 153C of the Act for the year in pursuance of such notice would not survive, having no legs to stand and is thus annulled being beyond the period of 10 years.
12.3As it is held that the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to assess the appellant’s case for the AY2013-14, therefore, all the other grounds, legal as well as on merits raised by the appellant are rendered academic in nature and hence not required to be adjudicated upon. There is thus adjudication on merits in this case.
13.Direction/s u/s 150 of the Act- In case in any future appellate/ judicial forum the stand of the Department /AO in the subject matter is upheld, the AO shall take appropriate remedial measures as permissible under the applicable provisions of the statute to consider and bring the income to tax in the hands of the appellant as may relate to the instant AY2013-14.
14.In the result the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
Aggrieved the order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. DR relied the order of the AO. He submitted that the case is not covered from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court passed in the Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd. (Supra). He also submitted the Revenue filed the appeal against that order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
We heard the parties and perused the material on record. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that in the case of PCIT (Central-1) vs. Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd. the Hon’ble High Court held that the block period was to be computed from the date of receipt by the Assessing Officer of the non-searched person of the books or documents or assets seized or requisitioned, where date of handing over of documents was not available, date of issuance of satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer under section 153C of the Act would be pertinent for the purpose of first proviso to section 153C(1) of the Act. In the present case the search was conducted on the Alankit Group on 18-10-2019, but the seized documents were handed over to the AO of the assessee on 05-04-2022 and the notice dated 10-05-2022 was issued to the assessee in the relevant search financial year 2022-23 and AY 2023-24. All the date handing over sized material to AO of non-searched person falls in the A.Y. 2023-24. The Ld. CIT(A) had calculated the 10 years in his order at page 32-to 34 from the date of assumed searched AY2023-24 to 2014-15. The Assessment Year 2013-14 would clearly fall outside the block period of ten AYs’ and cannot be reopened under section 153C of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee on the jurisdictional issue, which does not need any interference on our part, hence we uphold the same.
Respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, we are inclined to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who passed the well-reasoned and speaking order relying on the aforesaid decisions, Accordingly, the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. Accordingly, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed for assessment year 2013-14.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.