Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Ajay Goenka

“15.

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. As seen from record, the Satisfaction note in the instant case was recorded by the AO of the searched person on 19.07.2022 and forwarded on the same date along with related annexures/documents to the jurisdictional AO of the appellant, and the notice u/s 153C of the Act dated 12.05.2023 was issued by the AO. Thus, the relevant date of handingover lies in the F.Y. 2022-23 relevant to AY 2023-24. Therefore, by this yardstick, six years period as referred to in section 153C(1) of the Act would be from AYs 2017-18 to 2022-23 (and 2023-24).

16.

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 relevant portion of the satisfaction note drawn as seen from record and submitted by the appellant was perused, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below:

3.

Based on the detailed analysis of Ledgers related to Sh. Ajay Goenka, it came to light that the unaccounted cash transactions have been made to the extent as summarily quantified below for each ledger:

5.

From the below mentioned transactions in the ledger of Sh. Ajay Goenka it appears that yments have been made to following entities on behalf of Sh. Ajay Goenka to these entities:

17.

From the above, it is seen that the aggregate of the income having escaped assessment for the 'relevant assessment years', i.e. impugned 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.

18.

Following 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 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. It is thus 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. Accordingly, based on the aforesaid facts in the instant case of the appellant, respectfully following the binding judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court as per judicial discipline in the case of Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd. (supra), it is held that the notice u/s 153C dated 12.05.2023 for the AY 2014-15 would fall beyond the ambit of six AYs' as provided under section 153C read with section 153A, and hence the impugned assessment order dated 24.03.2024 passed u/s 153C of the Act for the instant AY 2014-15 in pursuance of such notice would not survive, having no legs to stand, and is thus annulled.

19.

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, both legal and on merits, are rendered academic in nature, and hence not required to be adjudicated upon. There is hence no adjudication on other grounds or merits in this case.”