AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
These two appeals by the Revenue are preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Delhi dated 18.09.2025 arising out of the assessment order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the AO”) under section 153C r.w.s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) pertaining to Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12.
Since the above captioned appeals were heard together and the facts in issues are identical, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.7921/Del/2025 are as under :
“1.The Ld. CIT (A) is not correct in law and on facts.
2.The Ld. CIT (A)has erred in holding that block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by calculating the same from the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized, by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person and not from the date of initiation of search by relying on First Proviso to Section 153C, even when this Proviso specifically deals only with the abatement of proceedings (as referred to second proviso of Section 153A) and does not deal with the calculation of block periods?
3.The Ld. CIT (A) has erred 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, even when the position of law is clarified after the amendment introduced by Finance Act, 2017, that the block period of 6AYs and 10 AYs as mentioned in 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.The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in quashing the impugned notice dated 02.02.2023 issued under Section 153C of the Act and all consequential proceedings arising there from by 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 and not from the date of initiation of search by relying on First Proviso to Section 153C, even when this Proviso specifically deals only with the abatement of proceedings (as referred to second proviso of Section 153A) and does not deal with the calculation of block periods.
5.The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law by holding that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act in the case of assessee is invalid.
6.The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its original return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 29.09.2010 at an income of Rs.2,02,82,000/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Rajiv Saxena and others on 30.06.2019. During the course of investigation some incriminating documents/materials in the form of mail and chat have been found which pertain to the assessee. It is found that some nexus between Sanjay Jain, A.D. Singh and their associates with foreign suppliers as well as domestic buyers of fertilizer and fertilizer products. Thereafter, notice u/s 153C was issued to assessee on 02.02.2023. In response to the notice u/s 153C of the Act, the assessee filed the return of income on 11.02.2023 at an income of Rs.2,02,82,000/-. Further notices u/s 142(1) of the Act on various dates were issued seeking the requisite details. In response to the notice, assessee filed replies in support of his contention. Subsequently, assessment order u/s 153C of the Act has been passed on 31.03.2023 assessing total income at Rs.2,72,82,000/- by making an addition of Rs.70,00,000/-. Aggrieved, assessee was in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) given relief to the assessee by observing that the assessment order passed u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law, without jurisdiction, time barred and void ab initio.
Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.
At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that the reopening of assessment in A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 is beyond 10 years.
Per contra, learned DR relied on the orders of the AO while the learned AR relied on the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that there was a search in the case of Rajeev Saxena on 30.06.2019 wherein certain documents were found which pertained to the assessee. The AO of the assessee i.e. non searched person recorded his satisfaction under section 153C of the Act on 15.12.2022 i.e., in F.Y. 2022-23 relevant to A.Y. 2023-24. In accordance with the decision of hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd & Others [2024] 161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi) order dated 03.04.2024, the relevant assessment year, for the purpose of computing ten year block has to be reckoned from A.Y. 2023-24 till A.Y. 2014-15. In other words, the block of ten assessment years, for the purpose of Sec 153C, would be assessment years 2014-15 to 2023-24. Since, the impugned A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 is beyond 10 years, in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd & Others (supra), no notice u/s 153C of the Act and consequent assessment can be issued/made for A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12. The notice u/s 153C for A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 is therefore considered as beyond the limitation period and accordingly quashed. The grounds are dismissed.
9 In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos. 7921 & 7922/DEL/2025 are dismissed
The order is pronounced in the open court on 14.05.2026.