DCIT vs JFC Finance (India) Ltd.

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Years 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)-2 6, New Delhi’s order dated 27.02.2025 in case No . 26/10153/2011-12, in proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the p arties at length. Case file perused.

Delay of 27 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in lig ht of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

It transpires dur ing the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A) herein has q uashed section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) assessment herein; as not sustainable in law, for the precise reason that the impugned assessme nt year fall beyond the statutory time period of ten asse ssment years as on the date of search, which is to be calculated as on the date of necessary satisfaction to be recorded by the learned Assessing Officer s t under 1 proviso to section 153C(1) of the Act. We wish to make it clear that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in question on 18.10.2019 which inter alia followed the searched party’s Assessing Officer’s section 153C satisfactio n on 24.06.2022; who handed over the se ized material on the very date to the jurisdictional assessing authority. And that this latter Assessing Officer recorded his satisfaction o n 13.10.2023. The Revenue could hardly dispute in this factual backdrop that going by the above date of handing over of the seized material to the assessee’s Assessing Officer is to be treated as the date of search itself u/s 153C(1) s t 1 proviso. And that the relevant ten assessme nt years ought to be counted u/s 153A(1) Explanation-I as i.e. “from the end of the assessme nt year relevant to the previous year in which the search conducted or a requisition is made” does not cover the assessment y ear 2012-13 here in.

Learned CIT-DR vehemently reiterates the Re venue’s stand that the CIT(A) herein has erred in law and on facts in quashing the impugned assessment as falling beyond the statutory framework of ten assessme nt years; to be counted from the end of the assessment year as on the date of recording of satisfaction.

We find no merit in the Revenue’s relevant submissions. This is for the precise reason that hon’ble jurisdictional high cour t recent landmark decision in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del.); as followed in the CIT(A) lower appellate discussion, has already settled both these issues in the assessee’s favour and against the department thereby holding that going by section 153A(1) Explanation- I as applicable in an assessment to b e framed u/s 153C of the Act, has to count ten years “from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in the search is conducted...........”. We thus find merit in the assessee’s vehement submissions supporting the learned CIT(A) impugned lower appellate discussion quashing the assessment in very terms. The Revenue fails in it’s substantive ground raised in the appeal there fore.

All other pleadings o n merits here in stand rendered academic.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.