DR. D.Y.PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY, MUMBAI V. ACIT CENT. CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

CO 59/MUM/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2626 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Period of limitation; Validity of assessment; Condonation of delay; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 2293/MUM/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & ITA No. 2294/MUM/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. CIT, CC-7(1), R. No. 676B, 6 th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, 869, E Ward, Kasaba Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. PAN No. AAATD 8919 M Appellant Respondent CO No. 58/MUM/2022 (ITA No. 2293/MUM/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & CO No. 59/MUM/2022 (ITA No. 2294/MUM/2021) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, 869, E Ward, Kasaba Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Vs. Asst. CIT, CC-7(1), R. No. 676B, 6 th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAATD 8919 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah, AR Revenue by : Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR/Mahita Nair Date of Hearing : 09/09/2022 Date of pronouncement : 29/09/2022 PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the Revenue and cross assessee are directed against a common order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011 2012-13. 2. The grounds and cross assessment year 2011 ITA No. 2293/MUM/2021 Assessment Year: 2011 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Rs. 61,80,01 and in law the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in addition made by the A0 on account of taking capitation fee/donation in cash of Rs.2.00 Crores for admission of students in Medical College at Kolhapur. 2. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is made on account capitation fee/donation in cash of Rs.2.00 crores without appreciating the fact that the AO has made Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are directed against a common order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011 The grounds and cross-objection of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 are reproduced as under: ITA No. 2293/MUM/2021 2011-12 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Rs. 61,80,01 and in law the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in deleting the addition made by the A0 on account of taking capitation fee/donation in cash of Rs.2.00 Crores for admission of students in Medical College at Kolhapur. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made on account capitation fee/donation in cash of Rs.2.00 crores without appreciating the fact that the AO has made Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 2 objection by the assessee are directed against a common order dated 28.09.2021 tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12 and objection of the assessee for Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Rs. deleting the addition made by the A0 on account of taking capitation fee/donation in cash of Rs.2.00 Crores for admission of 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case justified in deleting the addition made on account capitation fee/donation in cash of Rs.2.00 crores without appreciating the fact that the AO has made addition on the basis of facts/statements of the employees/evidences gathered during the course of sear and assessment proceedings. CO No. 58/MUM/2022 (ITA No. 2293/MUM/2021) Assessment Year: 2011 1. That the notice issued U/s 153C and/the assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act ('Act') is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdic limitation. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (CIT(A)) has grossly erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by the Assessing officer us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. That the Learned A law and not appreciating the facts that the addition is not sustainable in a non incriminating document found during the course of search." 4. That the respondent craves leave t to add to, alter, or amend any of the aforesaid grounds of cross objection at or before the time of hearing and to produce such further evidence, documents and papers in support of its claim as may be necessary. Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 addition on the basis of facts/statements of the employees/evidences gathered during the course of sear and assessment proceedings. (ITA No. 2293/MUM/2021) 2011-12 That the notice issued U/s 153C and/the assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act ('Act') is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and barred by time limitation. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)- (CIT(A)) has grossly erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by the Assessing officer us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. That the Learned Assessing Office as well as Ld CIT(A) erred in law and not appreciating the facts that the addition is not sustainable in a non- abated assessment year without any incriminating document found during the course of search." That the respondent craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add to, alter, or amend any of the aforesaid grounds of cross objection at or before the time of hearing and to produce such further evidence, documents and papers in support of its claim as may be necessary. Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 3 addition on the basis of facts/statements of the employees/evidences gathered during the course of search That the notice issued U/s 153C and/the assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act ('Act') is tion and barred by time -49 Mumbai (CIT(A)) has grossly erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by the Assessing officer us 153C r.w.s. ssessing Office as well as Ld CIT(A) erred in law and not appreciating the facts that the addition is not abated assessment year without any incriminating document found during the course of search." o reserve to itself the right to add to, alter, or amend any of the aforesaid grounds of cross objection at or before the time of hearing and to produce such further evidence, documents and papers in 2. The grounds and cross objection in respect of AY 2012 also identical except quantum of addition reproduced here for brevity. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a trust was engaged in running various educat medical college and engineering college etc. A search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at organizations related to the assessee consequence to the information p during the course of search, invoking section 153C of the Act. The search in the case of other entities was concluded on 29.07.2016 and therefore, assessment in the case of searched assessment year 2011 assessee was passed on to the Assessing Officer of the assessee and relevant seized document was handed over to the Assessing Officer Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 and cross objection in respect of AY 2012 except quantum of addition, therefore, same are not for brevity. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a trust was engaged in running various educational institutions including medical college and engineering college etc. A search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at organizations related to the assessee consequence to the information pertaining to the assessee fo during the course of search, the cases of the assessee were reopened invoking section 153C of the Act. The search in the case of other entities was concluded on 29.07.2016 and therefore, assessment in ed person were reopened for the period from assessment year 2011-12 to 2016-17. The information related to the assessee was passed on to the Assessing Officer of the assessee and relevant seized document was handed over to the Assessing Officer Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 4 and cross objection in respect of AY 2012-13 are , therefore, same are not Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a trust ional institutions including medical college and engineering college etc. A search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at organizations related to the assessee. In ertaining to the assessee found cases of the assessee were reopened invoking section 153C of the Act. The search in the case of other entities was concluded on 29.07.2016 and therefore, assessment in were reopened for the period from 17. The information related to the assessee was passed on to the Assessing Officer of the assessee and relevant seized document was handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee on 18.09.2018. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153C of the Act in respect of assessment year 2011 17. The present two appeals before us are pertaining to the assessment year 2011 completed u/s 153 assessment years under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A), though uphold the validity of assessment/reassessment u/s 153C of the Act, however, allowed relief on merit. Aggrieved assessee are before us by wa appeal/cross-objection. 4. The Ld. DR submitted that appeals by the Assessing Officer have been filed with delay of two days, which is covered under the extended period of limitation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order dated 10.04.2020 in of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020 did not object to condonation of delay of two days. We find that Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 e on 18.09.2018. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153C of the Act in respect of assessment year 2011 17. The present two appeals before us are pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The assessment completed u/s 153C of the Act on 27.12.2018 for both the assessment years under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A), though uphold the validity of assessment/reassessment u/s 153C of the Act, however, allowed relief on merit. Aggrieved, the Revenue and are before us by way of respective grounds, objection. The Ld. DR submitted that appeals by the Assessing Officer filed with delay of two days, which is covered under the extended period of limitation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 10.04.2020 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not object to condonation of delay of two days. We find that Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 5 e on 18.09.2018. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153C of the Act in respect of assessment year 2011-12 to 2016- 17. The present two appeals before us are pertaining to the The assessments were of the Act on 27.12.2018 for both the assessment years under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A), though uphold the validity of assessment/reassessment u/s 153C of the Act, the Revenue and y of respective grounds, in their The Ld. DR submitted that appeals by the Assessing Officer filed with delay of two days, which is covered under the extended period of limitation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 665 . The Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not object to condonation of delay of two days. We find that appeals filed by the Revenue are within the extended period allow by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) in view of the Covid Pandemic and hence, appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. The Ld. Counsel of the assssee has filed an application of additional ground, which is reproduced as under: 1. appreciating that the impugned assessment ought to have been made u/s 153A of the Act and not u/s 143(3) of the Act and therefore the assessment made by the AO is bad in law and invalid. 6. We have heard submissions of the partie admissibility of additional ground. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of legal issue raised and no fresh investigation of fact required, the additional ground is admitted for 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that under the provisions of section 153C Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 appeals filed by the Revenue are within the extended period allow by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) in view of the Covid Pandemic and hence, appeals are admitted for adjudication. The Ld. Counsel of the assssee has filed an application of additional ground, which is reproduced as under: The Ld. AO has erred in law an d in facts is not appreciating that the impugned assessment ought to have been made u/s 153A of the Act and not u/s 143(3) of the Act and therefore the assessment made by the AO is bad in law and invalid. We have heard submissions of the parties on the issue of additional ground. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC v. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), legal issue raised and no fresh investigation of fact required, the additional ground is admitted for adjudication. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that under the provisions of section 153C of the Act, the six years which could have Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are within the extended period allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) in view of the Covid Pandemic and hence, appeals are admitted for adjudication. The Ld. Counsel of the assssee has filed an application of n law an d in facts is not appreciating that the impugned assessment ought to have been made u/s 153A of the Act and not u/s 143(3) of the Act and therefore the assessment made by the AO is bad in law and s on the issue of additional ground. In view of the decision of Hon’ble NTPC v. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), being legal issue raised and no fresh investigation of fact required, the Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that under the which could have been reopened are six years prior to the year in which books of account or seized documents are handed over Officer of the assessee person. It was submitted that since the seized material was handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee on 18.09.2018 and therefore, the relevant been assessment year 2013 detailed finding rejected the contention of the assessee observing as under : “7.2.1 I have already considered this aspect while adjudicating a similar ground raised by the assessment order passed us 143(3) of the Act, where the plea of the assessee was that the said order for AY 2017 passed us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) as the six assessment years in this case, if considered fr 2013-14 to 2018 After considering the submissions of the assessee and the relevant judicial pronouncements on this issue, I have already held that the six assessment years for which the notices us 153C be issued in this case are AYs 2011 Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 six years prior to the year in which books of account or seized documents are handed over to the Assessing of the assessee by the Assessing Officer of the person. It was submitted that since the seized material was handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee on 18.09.2018 and therefore, the relevant six assessment year u/s 153C could have been assessment year 2013-14 to 2018-19. The Ld. detailed finding rejected the contention of the assessee observing as 7.2.1 I have already considered this aspect while adjudicating a similar ground raised by the assessee in AY 2017-18, as against assessment order passed us 143(3) of the Act, where the plea of the assessee was that the said order for AY 2017-18 should have been passed us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) as the six assessment years in this case, if considered from the date of receipt of seized material would be 14 to 2018-19. After considering the submissions of the assessee and the relevant judicial pronouncements on this issue, I have already held that the six assessment years for which the notices us 153C were required to be issued in this case are AYs 2011-12 to Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 7 six years prior to the year in which books of to the Assessing Assessing Officer of the searched person. It was submitted that since the seized material was handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee on 18.09.2018 and r u/s 153C could have 19. The Ld. CIT(A) after detailed finding rejected the contention of the assessee observing as 7.2.1 I have already considered this aspect while adjudicating a 18, as against assessment order passed us 143(3) of the Act, where the plea of the 18 should have been passed us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) as the six assessment years in this case, om the date of receipt of seized material would be After considering the submissions of the assessee and the relevant judicial pronouncements on this issue, I have already held that the were required to 2016-17. The aforesaid findings as appearing in the appeal order dated 28.09.2021 in the case of the appellant for AY 2017 reproduced as below for ready reference and for the sake of completeness: "7.2.1. I have considered the submissions of the appellant, the provisions of the Act and judicial decisions relied upon by the appellant and other judicial pronouncements as applicable to the issue at hand. On perusal of the impugned assessment or evident that the learned AO in the case of assessee has proceeded with issuing notices for the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted in the aforesaid cases searched persons as the date of search noted in the assessment order is 27.07.2016, which was concluded on 29.07.2016. 7.2.2. However, the contention raised by the assessee before me vide the aforesaid ground is that the Id. AO should have issued no 153C for AY 2017 computation of six previous assessment years would be the date on which the seized document was handed over to the Id. AO which is 18.09.2018 in this case. The contention of the assessee in is that as per the provisions of Section 153C(1) r.w.s.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer can initiate assessment proceedings for six proceeding years prior to the date of search by issue of notice Us 153C of the Act and in terms of the fir the Act, for the purpose of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act, the reference to the date of search in Section 153A of the Act shall be the date on which the Assessing Officer of the other person has Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 17. The aforesaid findings as appearing in the appeal order dated 28.09.2021 in the case of the appellant for AY 2017 reproduced as below for ready reference and for the sake of "7.2.1. I have considered the submissions of the appellant, the provisions of the Act and judicial decisions relied upon by the appellant and other judicial pronouncements as applicable to the issue at hand. On perusal of the impugned assessment or evident that the learned AO in the case of assessee has proceeded with issuing notices for the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted in the aforesaid cases searched persons as the date of search noted in the assessment order is 27.07.2016, which was concluded on 29.07.2016. 7.2.2. However, the contention raised by the assessee before me vide the aforesaid ground is that the Id. AO should have issued no 153C for AY 2017-18 as well since, the date of search for computation of six previous assessment years would be the date on which the seized document was handed over to the Id. AO which is 18.09.2018 in this case. The contention of the assessee in this regard is that as per the provisions of Section 153C(1) r.w.s.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer can initiate assessment proceedings for six proceeding years prior to the date of search by issue of notice Us 153C of the Act and in terms of the first proviso to Section the Act, for the purpose of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act, the reference to the date of search in Section 153A of the Act shall be the date on which the Assessing Officer of the other person has Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 8 17. The aforesaid findings as appearing in the appeal order dated 28.09.2021 in the case of the appellant for AY 2017-18 are reproduced as below for ready reference and for the sake of "7.2.1. I have considered the submissions of the appellant, the provisions of the Act and judicial decisions relied upon by the appellant and other judicial pronouncements as applicable to the issue at hand. On perusal of the impugned assessment order, it is evident that the learned AO in the case of assessee has proceeded with issuing notices for the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted in the aforesaid cases of the searched persons as the date of search noted in the assessment 7.2.2. However, the contention raised by the assessee before me vide the aforesaid ground is that the Id. AO should have issued notice us 18 as well since, the date of search for computation of six previous assessment years would be the date on which the seized document was handed over to the Id. AO which is this regard is that as per the provisions of Section 153C(1) r.w.s.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer can initiate assessment proceedings for six proceeding years prior to the date of search by issue of notice Us st proviso to Section 153C of the Act, for the purpose of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act, the reference to the date of search in Section 153A of the Act shall be the date on which the Assessing Officer of the other person has received the books of accoun from the Assessing Officer of the person searched. on the judicial decisions referred to in the submissions of the assessee, as reproduced previously, it was claimed that the date of receiving of books o Officer of the assessee concerned would be the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the person searched and the date on which such books of accounts or documents were handed over to the Assessing Officer of the third person. As the books of account and other documents were noted to have been received on 18.09.2018, and the AO had noted his satisfaction on the same date as AO of the assessee and issued notices us 153C on 19.09.2018, the assessment years for which the notice us. 153C of the Act should have been issued are A.Y. 2013 that the Id. AO should have issued notice issued us 153C of the Act for the year under reference which is AY 2017 assessment completed us 143(3) of the Act is without any jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. 8. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The only limited issue in addition assessment year for reassessment reckoned as six years prior to the year in which search has taken place or six years prior to the year in which seized material is Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 received the books of account or documents or assets seized etc from the Assessing Officer of the person searched. Placing reliance on the judicial decisions referred to in the submissions of the assessee, as reproduced previously, it was claimed that the date of receiving of books of account or documents in the case of Assessing Officer of the assessee concerned would be the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the person searched and the date on which such books of accounts or documents were handed over to the ficer of the third person. As the books of account and other documents were noted to have been received on 18.09.2018, and the AO had noted his satisfaction on the same date as AO of the assessee and issued notices us 153C on 19.09.2018, the assessment rs for which the notice us. 153C of the Act should have been issued are A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2018-19. It was, therefore, contended that the Id. AO should have issued notice issued us 153C of the Act for the year under reference which is AY 2017-18 and ther assessment completed us 143(3) of the Act is without any jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed.” We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The only dditional ground of the assessee assessment year for reassessment u/s 153C of the Act six years prior to the year in which search has taken place or six years prior to the year in which seized material is Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 9 t or documents or assets seized etc Placing reliance on the judicial decisions referred to in the submissions of the assessee, as reproduced previously, it was claimed that the date of f account or documents in the case of Assessing Officer of the assessee concerned would be the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the person searched and the date on which such books of accounts or documents were handed over to the ficer of the third person. As the books of account and other documents were noted to have been received on 18.09.2018, and the AO had noted his satisfaction on the same date as AO of the assessee and issued notices us 153C on 19.09.2018, the assessment rs for which the notice us. 153C of the Act should have been 19. It was, therefore, contended that the Id. AO should have issued notice issued us 153C of the Act 18 and therefore, the assessment completed us 143(3) of the Act is without any We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue-in- dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The only is whether the u/s 153C of the Act are to be six years prior to the year in which search has taken place or six years prior to the year in which seized material is received by the Assessing Officer of the other person. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITR 612 has held that for the purpose of section 153C of the Act years has to be reckoned as six years prior to the date of receipt of seized material by the Assessing Officer of the other person. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court are reproduced as under: “24. As discussed hereinbefore, in terms of pro the Act, a reference to the date of the search under the second proviso to Section 153A over of assets/documents belonging to the Assessee (being the person other than the one searched) to the AO having jurisdiction to assess the said Assessee. Further proceedings, by virtue of the Act, would have to be in accordance with and the reference to the date of search would have to be construed as the reference to the date of recording of sat that the six assessment years for which assessments/reassessments could be made under construed with reference to the date of handi assets/documents to the AO of the Assessee. In this case, it would be the date of the recording of satisfaction under Act, i.e., 8th September, 2010. In this view, the assessments made in respect of assessment year 2003 the period of six Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 e Assessing Officer of the other person. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. RRJ Securities 380 has held that for the purpose of section 153C of the Act years has to be reckoned as six years prior to the date of receipt of seized material by the Assessing Officer of the other person. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court are reproduced as under: 24. As discussed hereinbefore, in terms of proviso to Section 153C the Act, a reference to the date of the search under the second proviso Section 153A of the Act has to be construed as the date of handing over of assets/documents belonging to the Assessee (being the person other than the one searched) to the AO having jurisdiction to assess the said Assessee. Further proceedings, by virtue of Section 153C(1) the Act, would have to be in accordance with Section 153A and the reference to the date of search would have to be construed as the reference to the date of recording of satisfaction. It would follow that the six assessment years for which assessments/reassessments could be made under Section 153C of the Act would also have to be construed with reference to the date of handing over of assets/documents to the AO of the Assessee. In this case, it would be the date of the recording of satisfaction under Section 153C Act, i.e., 8th September, 2010. In this view, the assessments made in respect of assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05 would be beyond the period of six assessment years as reckoned with reference to the Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 10 e Assessing Officer of the other person. We find that CIT v. RRJ Securities 380 has held that for the purpose of section 153C of the Act, six years has to be reckoned as six years prior to the date of receipt of seized material by the Assessing Officer of the other person. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court are reproduced as under: Section 153C of the Act, a reference to the date of the search under the second proviso te of handing over of assets/documents belonging to the Assessee (being the person other than the one searched) to the AO having jurisdiction to assess Section 153C(1) of Section 153A of the Act and the reference to the date of search would have to be construed as isfaction. It would follow that the six assessment years for which assessments/reassessments of the Act would also have to be ng over of assets/documents to the AO of the Assessee. In this case, it would be Section 153C of the Act, i.e., 8th September, 2010. In this view, the assessments made in 05 would be beyond assessment years as reckoned with reference to the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of is contended by the Revenue that the relevant six assessment years would be the assessment years prior to the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. If this interpretation as canvassed by t mean that whereas in case of a person searched, assessments in relation to six previous years preceding the year in which the search takes place can be reopened but in case of any other person, who is not searched but his a period for which the assessments could be reopened would be much beyond the period of six years. This is so because the date of handing over of assets/documents of a person, other than the searched person, to the AO would be subsequent to the date of the search. This, in our view, would be contrary to the scheme of the Act, which construes the date of receipt of assets and documents by the AO of the Assessee (other than one searched) as the date of the search on the Assessee. The rationale appears to be that whereas in the case of a searched person the AO of the searched person assumes possession of seized assets/documents on search of the As seized assets/documents belonging to a person other person come into possession of the AO of that person only after the AO of the searched person is satisfied that the assets/documents do not belong to the searched person. Thus, the person other than the one searched assumes the possession of the seized assets would be the relevant date for applying the provisions of Section 153A in any view of the matter, assessment for AY 2003 were outside the scope of Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person. It is contended by the Revenue that the relevant six assessment years would be the assessment years prior to the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. If this interpretation as canvassed by the Revenue is accepted, it would mean that whereas in case of a person searched, assessments in relation to six previous years preceding the year in which the search takes place can be reopened but in case of any other person, who is not searched but his assets are seized from the searched person, the period for which the assessments could be reopened would be much beyond the period of six years. This is so because the date of handing over of assets/documents of a person, other than the searched the AO would be subsequent to the date of the search. This, in our view, would be contrary to the scheme of Section 153C(1) the Act, which construes the date of receipt of assets and documents O of the Assessee (other than one searched) as the date of the search on the Assessee. The rationale appears to be that whereas in the case of a searched person the AO of the searched person assumes possession of seized assets/documents on search of the As seized assets/documents belonging to a person other than a searched person come into possession of the AO of that person only after the AO of the searched person is satisfied that the assets/documents do not belong to the searched person. Thus, the date on which the AO of the person other than the one searched assumes the possession of the seized assets would be the relevant date for applying the provisions Section 153A of the Act. We, therefore, accept the contention that in any view of the matter, assessment for AY 2003-04 and AY 2004 were outside the scope of Section 153C of the Act and the AO had no Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 11 the searched person. It is contended by the Revenue that the relevant six assessment years would be the assessment years prior to the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. If this he Revenue is accepted, it would mean that whereas in case of a person searched, assessments in relation to six previous years preceding the year in which the search takes place can be reopened but in case of any other person, who is ssets are seized from the searched person, the period for which the assessments could be reopened would be much beyond the period of six years. This is so because the date of handing over of assets/documents of a person, other than the searched the AO would be subsequent to the date of the search. This, Section 153C(1) of the Act, which construes the date of receipt of assets and documents O of the Assessee (other than one searched) as the date of the search on the Assessee. The rationale appears to be that whereas in the case of a searched person the AO of the searched person assumes possession of seized assets/documents on search of the Assessee; the than a searched person come into possession of the AO of that person only after the AO of the searched person is satisfied that the assets/documents do the date on which the AO of the person other than the one searched assumes the possession of the seized assets would be the relevant date for applying the provisions fore, accept the contention that 04 and AY 2004-05 of the Act and the AO had no jurisdiction to make an assessment year.” 8.1 Before us, no contrary decision has been brought the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). The Ld. Counsel also submitted that said been further confirme CIT v. Container Corporation of India and Ors [Civil Appeal No. 8900/2012 dated 24.08.2018 8.2 The issue-in-dispute involved in identical to the issue which has been decided by High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra), therefore, respectfully following the finding of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (supra), we hold that in the case of the assessee six years for assessment u/s 153C has to be reckoned 14 to assessment year 2018 proceedings in these two years completed u/s 153C of the Act Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 jurisdiction to make an assessment of the Assessee's income for that Before us, no contrary decision has been brought the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). The Ld. Counsel also decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Container Corporation of India and Ors [Civil Appeal No. 8900/2012 dated 24.08.2018. dispute involved in additional ground identical to the issue which has been decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra), therefore, respectfully following the finding of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court , we hold that in the case of the assessee six years for assessment u/s 153C has to be reckoned are assessment year 2013 14 to assessment year 2018-19. Therefore, the assessment proceedings in these two years completed u/s 153C of the Act Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 12 of the Assessee's income for that Before us, no contrary decision has been brought on record by the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). The Ld. Counsel also decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has d by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Container Corporation of India and Ors [Civil Appeal No. additional ground before us is the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra), therefore, respectfully following the finding of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court , we hold that in the case of the assessee six years for assessment year 2013- 19. Therefore, the assessment proceedings in these two years completed u/s 153C of the Act are not accordance with law proceedings for AY 2011 8.3 Since, we have already quashed the assessment proceedings in the appeal before us in AY 2011 issues raised in the appeal of the Revenue are rendered only academic and we are not adjudicating upon as infructuous. 8.4 The facts and circumstances in the AY 2012 to AY 2010-11, the whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 9. In the result, both the appeal whereas cross-objections of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court in Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 not accordance with law and accordingly we quash the assessment proceedings for AY 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since, we have already quashed the assessment proceedings in the appeal before us in AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 raised in the appeal of the Revenue are rendered only academic and we are not adjudicating upon and same are dismissed The facts and circumstances in the AY 2012-13 the cross objection of the assessee is allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed objections of the assessee are allowed. ounced in the open Court in 29/09 Sd/ AMIT SHUKLA) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 13 uash the assessment Since, we have already quashed the assessment proceedings in 3, therefore, the raised in the appeal of the Revenue are rendered only same are dismissed 13 being identical oss objection of the assessee is allowed of the Revenue are dismissed objections of the assessee are allowed. /09/2022. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 29/09/2022 Dragon Legal/Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai Dr. DY Patil Education Society ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/M/2021 & CO No. 58 & 59 /M /2022 14 BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai