DCIT vs Hitesh Khanna

“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 filed a SLP against this decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court?

2.

Whether on the facts and 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 searcheven 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, 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 drawn 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 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"?

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.”

“ 16. As per the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi, the period of six assessment years means six years prior to the assessment year in which the seized material was handed over to the AO of the other' (non-searched) person / satisfaction note u/s 153C was recorded by the concerned AO. As per record, the Satisfaction note was recorded by the AO of the searched person on 24.06.2022 and the notice u/s 153C of the Act in the instant case was issued by the AO on 24.08.2022 after receipt of the seized documents, i.e. in the F.Y. 2022-23 relevant to AY 2023-24. Therefore, by this yardstick, the six years period as referred to in section 153C(1) of the Act would be from AY 2017-18 to 2022-23 (and AY 2023-24).

17.

To ascertain whether the income escaping assessment in the relevant assessment year or the aggregate of the assessment years amounted to or was likely to amount to Rs. 50 Lakhs or more, the satisfaction note drawn was perused, and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced below:

18.

From the above it is seen that the aggregate of the income having escaped assessment for the "relevant assessment years', le 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

19.

Following the ratio of decision as per the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare (supra) which serves as a direct legal authority in the matter, the satisfaction note does not show that the Income alleged to have 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. 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.V. 2014-15 is not covered within six AYs as per section 153C of the Act and the condition/s precedent for assessing it as part of the relevant assessment year's was not existent. The notice issued for the 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 15.02.2024 passed u/s 1530 of the Act forthe instant AY 2014-15 in pursuance of such notice would not survive, having no legs to stand, and is thus annulled.

20.

As it is held that the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to assess the appellant's case for the A.Y 2014-15, therefore, all the other grounds raised by the appellant are rendered academic in nature, and hence not required to be adjudicated upon. There is hence no adjudication on merits in this case.