ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI V. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 4045/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9832 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUSHMA SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Documents seized; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 13; 153; 153C; 68; 132; 11; 15; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I .T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI. VS. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., 203, PUJA HOUSE, KARAMPURA, COMMERICAL HOUSE, NEW DELHI. TAN/PAN: AAGCA4362A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI AJAY WADHWA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SUSHMA SINGH, CIT-D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 12 04 2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 9 07 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM THE AFORESAID APPEAL PERTAINING TO A.Y.2007-08 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 30, NEW DELHI WHEREIN THE ASSESSMENT HASBEEN QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFOR E US ARE REPRODUCED UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE A O TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 88 OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF U NEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,88.00,000/-, I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OFTHE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING T HE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,49,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPEND ITURE ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THA T THE INITIATION OF ACTION U/S. 153C OF THE ACT FOR COMPLETING ASSES SMENT U/S. 153C/153A OF THE ACT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY REL YING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RRJ SECURITIES LTD. BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPT ED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND SLP AGAINST THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN TOE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SH. KABUL CHAWLA BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND S LP AGAINST THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN TOE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WORDS TOTAL INCOME' AS USED IN SECTION 15 3C/153A WOULD ONLY MEAN UNDISCLOSED INCOME DISCOVERED FROM SEIZED / INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. 6. ON THE FACTS END IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADOPTING A RESTRICTIVE AND PEDANTIC INTERPRETATION OF THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 153C/153A OF THE ACT. 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN TOE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WORDS 'TOTAL INCOME AS USED IN SECTION 15 3C/153A WOULD ONLY MEAN INCOME UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH WHEN THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY VS. DCIT DATED I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 3 09.08.2014 HAS HELD THAT TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES INCO ME UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH AND ANY OTHER INCOME. 8. THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 9. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, A LTER OR FORGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIM E OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THIS APPEAL ARE THAT CONSEQUENT TO A SEARCH DATED 30.10.2012 CONDUCTED ON M/S PRAKASH IN DUSTRIES LTD (PIL IN SHORT) UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON THE APPELLANT ON 12.02.2015 ON THE GROUND THAT THE DOCUMENTS/MATERIAL BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON PIL. 4. A SATISFACTION NOTE BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UN DER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER (A O) IN THE CAPACITY OF THE AO SEARCHED PERSON I.E. PIL AND ALSO IN THE CAPACITY OF THE AO OF THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME WAS DULY COMMUNICATED TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT FILED DETAILED OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 153C OF THE ACT AND THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO.THES E OBJECTIONS WERE ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE AO AND DISPOSED OFF. 5. THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE LD. AO BY PASSING ORDER UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ON 31.03.2015: A. UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM OF RS. I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 4 4,97,00,000/- RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR AND RS. 1 LAK H PROMOTERS CAPITAL.- REFER PAGE NO. 34-35 OF THE PAP ER BOOK. B. UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE @ 0.5% I.E, RS. 2,49,200/- 6. THE APPELLANT, BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) TOOK THE JURISDICTIONAL GROUND CONTENDING INTER-ALIA THAT THE ASSESSMENT, SO FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. ACCO RDING TO THE APPELLANT, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C COME INTO PLAY ON HANDING OVER OF DOCUMENTS SEIZED AND BELONGING TO T HE APPELLANTDURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BY THE AO OF TH E SEARCHED PERSON TO THE AO OF THE APPELLANT. ADMITTEDLY, THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE ON 30.10.2012 AND THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO T HE APPELLANT WERE HANDED OVER TO ITS AO ON 22.12.2014 WHICH IS A LSO THE DATE OF RECORDING OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE. IN ABSENCE O F ANY SPECIFIC DATE OF HANDING OVER OF MATERIAL IN THE SATISFACTIO N NOTE, THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION WILL BE ASSUMED TO BE THE DATE OF HANDING OVER THE MATERIAL. SATISFACTION NOTESARE AP PENDED AT PAGE NO. 22A TO 22D OF THE APPELLANTS PAPER BOOK. 7. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, ONCE THE DOCUMENTS AR E HANDED OVER, SIX PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM THE DATE O F HANDING OVER OF THE DOCUMENTS, LAY OPEN FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THUS, SIX P RECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS, FROM THE DATE OF THE HANDING OVER OF THE DOCUMENTS, I.E. 22.12.2014, ARE BEGINNING FROM A.Y. 2009-10 TO 2014-15. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT RELATED TO A.Y. 2007-08 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REOPENE D FOR ACTION I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 5 UNDER SECTION 153C SINCE FIRST OF THE SIX PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS A.Y. 2009-10 AND NOT A.Y. 2007-08. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, A.Y. 2007-08 DOES NOT COME INTO THE PURVIEW OF THE SIX PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS AS ENVISAGED UNDER SE CTION 153C OF THE ACT. 8. THE APPELLANT FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RRJ SECURITIES (380 ITR 612), ARN INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD. (81 TAXMANN.COM 260), RAJ BUILDWORTHPVT. LTD. (113 TAXMANN.COM 600), SARWAR AGENCY PVT. LTD. (85 TAXMANN.COM 269) AND OTHER JUDGEMENTS SUCH AS R.L. ALLIED SERVICES (54 TAXMANN.COM 222), INLAY MARKE TING PRIVATE LTD. (60 TAXMANN.COM 431, LAIRY DISTRIBUTOR S PVT. LTD. (74 TAXMANN.COM 122), CHAMPAK NIKETANPVT. LTD. (ITA NO. 5692/DEL/2016), DSL PROPERTIES (P.) LTD. V. DY. CIT [2013] 60 SOT 88/33 TAXMANN.COM 420 (DELHI - TRIB.) 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ON THIS GROUND WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- SYNOPSIS BRIEF FACTS: 1. THE APPELLANT WAS INCORPORATED ON 02.01.2007 AND WA S ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT AND SALE PURC HASE OF SHARES DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT FILED ITS R ETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 OF THE ACT ON 24.10.2007 DECLARING INCOME OF RS . 230/-. REFER PAGE NO. 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 2. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT BY ISSUING NOTICE ON 12.02. 2015 CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES GROUP OF COMPANIES ON 30.10.2012 . REFER PAGE NO. 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK. I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 6 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY IN RESPONSE TO THE AFORESA ID NOTICE VIDE LETTER DATED 25.02.2015 REQUESTED THE LD. AO T O PROVIDE THE COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY HIM AS WELL A S THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SEARCHED PERSON AND ALSO REQUESTED TO PR OVIDE THE DETAILS OF SEARCH AND THE MATERIAL SEIZED AND RELIED UPON B Y THE LD. AO FOR RECORDING THE SATISFACTION REQUIRED U/S 153C OF THE ACT. (REFER PAGE NO. 13-14 OF THE PB) 4. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN VIDE LETTER DATED 27.02.2015 REQ UESTED THE LD. AO TO PROVIDE THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY HIM AND THE SEIZED MATERIAL ALSO STATED THAT THE RETURN FILED UNDER SE CTION 139 OF THE ACT MAY BE TREATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. (REFER PAGE NO. 15-16 OF PB) 5. THE LD. AO PROVIDED THE COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE R ECORDED BY HIM AND THE AO OF SEARCHED PERSON BUT NEVER PROVIDE D THE COPY OF SEIZED MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED. (COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY THE AO OF SE ARCHED PERSON IS ATTACHED AT PAGE NO. 22A-22B AND COPY OF NOTE RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE IS AT PAGE NO. 2 2C-22D OF THE PAPER BOOK) 6. THE VIDE LETTER DATED 04.03.2015 FILED DETAILED OBJ ECTIONS AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. REFER PAGE NO. 23-24 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 7. THE LD. AO ALSO ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142(1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASKED FOR TH E VARIOUS DETAILS INCLUDING DETAILS OF SHARE CAPITAL ISSUED BY THE AS SESSEE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH WERE DULY COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 8. THE COMPANY HAS INITIALLY ISSUED 10,000 SHARES OF R S. 1,00,000 SUBSCRIBED IN ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATIO N AND FURTHER DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD ALLOTTED 99 400 EQUITY SHARES @ 500/- PER SHARE TO THE 8 ALLOTTEES DETAILS OF WHICH INCLUDING THEIR NAME, ADDRESS, PAN, NO. OF SHARES APPLIED ETC . DETAILS ARE ATTACHED AT PAGE NO. 44-45 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 9. IN SPITE OF THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS AND DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. AO IN RESPECT OF THE SHARE CAPITAL I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 7 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. AO HAD COMPLETED TH E ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OF THE ACT ON 31.03.2015 WITHOUT PASSING T HE SPEAKING ORDER DISPOSING OFF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE COMPANY AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THE LD. AO MADE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS TO THE RETURNED INCOME: A. UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM OF RS. 4 ,97,00,000/- RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR AND RS. 1 LAKH PROMOTERS C APITAL.- REFER PAGE NO. 34-35 OF THE PAPER BOOK. B. UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE @ 0 .5% I.E, RS. 2,49,200/- 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. AO THE ASSESSEE HAD P REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED. THE ASSESSEE PUT FORT H HIS ARGUMENTS AND FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AGAINST THE INITIATI ON OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND ON MERITS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 30 (L D. CIT (A)). COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF SUBMISSIONS DATED 11.03 .2017 AND FULL COPY OF SUBMISSIONS DATED 21.03.2017 FILED BEF ORE THE LD. CIT (A) IS ATTACHED AT PAGE NO.71-123 AND 124-131 O F THE PAPER BOOK. 11. THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER EXAMINING THE CASE IN DETAIL PASSED THE ORDER ON 31.03.2017 IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE ON THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS: I. THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IS VOID- AB-INITIO AS THE AO HAS NO JURISDICTION TO FOR MAKI NG ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2007-08, BEING BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 6 YEARS. REFER PAGE NO. 10-12 OF THE CIT (A) ORDER. 12. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), THE DE PARTMENT HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HONOURS. I. ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C FOR THE RELEV ANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS BARRED BY LIMITATION; NOTICE ISS UED BY THE AO AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153C DESERVES TO BE QUASHED 1. YOUR HONOURS, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE SEARCH WAS CO NDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. ON 3 0.10.2012. THE SEARCHED PERSON IS M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. AND THE ASSESSEE IS OTHER PERSON IN TERMS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 8 2. THE DATE OF SEARCH IS 30.10.2012 AND THE DATE OF RE CORDING SATISFACTION BY THE AO OF SEARCHED PERSON IS 22.12. 2014. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC DATE OF HANDING OVER OF MATERIAL IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, IT WAS ONLY ON 12TH DECEMBER, 2014, THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION WILL BE ASSUMED TO BE THE DATE OF HAND ING OVER THE MATERIAL. 3. PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT BY FINANCE ACT, 2017, IN TER MS OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 153C (1) OF THE ACT, THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE BOOKS AND ACCOUNTS BY THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED TO BE THE DATE OF SEARCH. IN THE PRESENT CASE IN ABSENCE OF ANY SPECI FIC DATE OF HANDING OVER OF MATERIAL, THE DATE OF RECORDING SAT ISFACTION I.E, 22.12.2014 IS TO BE TREATED AS THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF MATERIAL AND THEREFORE THE SIX AYS PRECEDING THE YEAR OF THE SEARCH, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS PROPOSED TO BE REOPENED, SHOULD BE A.Y. 2009- 10 TO A.Y. 2014-15. 4. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E, A.Y. 2007-08 IS THEREFORE BARRED BY LIMITATION. 5. CONSEQUENTLY, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C (1) COU LD HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR AYS 2009-10 TO A.Y. 2014-15. 6. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT PRIOR TO THE AM ENDMENT BY FINANCE ACT, 2017 THE DATE ON WHICH THE AO OF THE P ERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARCHED ASSUMES THE POSSESSION OF THE SEIZ ED ASSETS WOULD BE THE RELEVANT DATE FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. 7. ISSUANCE OF NOTICE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS INVALID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 8. TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS THE ASSESSEE RELIES UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS OF THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND TRIBUNALS: HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF RRJ SECU RITIES (380 ITR 612) HAS HELD THAT: - DATED 30.10.2015 HELD: IN TERMS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, A R EFERENCE TO THE DATE OF THE SEARCH UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 1 53A OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED AS THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF ASSE TS/DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE (BEING THE PERSON OTHER T HAN THE ONE I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 9 SEARCHED) TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION TO ASSESS T HE SAID ASSESSEE. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 153C(1) OF THE AC T, WOULD HAVE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT 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 WIT H 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 OF THE ACT, I.E., 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. IN THIS VIEW, THE ASSESSMENTS MADE IN RESPECT OF AS SESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 WOULD BE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF S IX ASSESSMENT YEARS AS RECKONED WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF REC ORDING 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 R ELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED . IF THIS INTERPRETATION AS CANVASSED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCEP TED, IT WOULD MEAN THAT WHEREAS IN CASE OF A PERSON SEARCHE D, ASSESSMENTS IN RELATION TO SIX PREVIOUS YEARS PRECE DING THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE CAN BE REOPENE D BUT IN CASE OF ANY OTHER PERSON, WHO IS NOT SEARCHED BUT H IS 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 SEARCH ED PERSON, TO THE AO WOULD BE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THE SEARC H. THIS, IN OUR VIEW, WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE SCHEME OF SECTION 15 3C (1) OF THE ACT, WHICH CONSTRUES THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF ASSETS AND D OCUMENTS 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 ASSESSEE; THE SEI ZED ASSETS/DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO A PERSON OTHER THAN A SEARCHED PERSON COME INTO POSSESSION OF THE AO OF THAT PERSO N ONLY AFTER THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS SATISFIED TH AT THE ASSETS/DOCUMENTS DO NOT BELONG TO THE SEARCHED PERS ON. THUS, THE DATE ON WHICH THE AO OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN T HE ONE SEARCHED ASSUMES THE POSSESSION OF THE SEIZED ASSET S WOULD BE THE RELEVANT DATE FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, ACCEPT THE CONTENTION THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2003-04 AND A Y 2004-05 WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT A ND THE AO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE' S INCOME FOR THAT YEAR. I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 10 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DEPARTMENT ALSO FILED WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS IN THE MATTER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS U NDER: SUB: WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE ABOVE CASES - REG. WITH RESPECT TO THE GROUND THAT THE INITIATION OF P ROCEEDINGS U/S 153 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. IN THIS REGARD THE FOLLOWING MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED: IT IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THE PROVISION OF SECTIO N 153C OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH IS AS BELOW : 153C. 3 [(1)] NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED I N SECTION 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECT ION 153, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULL ION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DO CUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER T HAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUM ENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON 3A [AND THAT AS SESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE NO TICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A, IF, THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFI ED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAVE A BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PER SON FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A] 4 [PROVIDED THAT IN CASE OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, THE RE FERENCE TO THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR MAKIN G OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO 5 [SUB-SECTIO N (1) OF] SECTION 153A SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. THE POSITION OF LAW IS VERY CLEAR AND THERE IS NO A MBIGUITY IN THE ACT. THIS IS FURTHER CLARIFIED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HONBLE DEL HI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SSP AVIATION LTD. VS. DCIT IN W.P.C. NO. 309/2011 D ATED 29.03.2012 IN PARA NO. 13, 14 & 15 WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 11 13. SECTIONS 153A TO 153D ARE PLACED IN CHAPTER XI V OF THE ACT, WHICH IS TITLED "PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT" . SECTION 153A PROVIDES FOR THE ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF SEARCH OR RE QUISITION. THIS SECTION APPLIES TO A PERSON IN WHOSE CASE A SEARCH IS INITI ATED UNDER SECTION 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ETC. ARE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTI ON132A. THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 153A IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CALL UPON THE ASSESSEE WHO IS SEARCHED TO FURNISH RETURNS OF INCOME FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSME NT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE. THE ASSESSEE, ON RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE FROM THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, SHALL FURNISH THE RETURNS OF INCOME AND THEREAFTER THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO ASSESS OR RE- ASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS . NOW, A QUESTION MAY ARISE AS TO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE REGULAR RETURN S, IF ANY, FILED BY THE SEARCHED ASSESSEE FOR ANY OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEA RS WHICH ARE PENDING ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE SEARCH WAS INITIATE. THE A NSWER IS GIVEN BY THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A, WHICH SAYS THAT IF ANY OF THOSE RETURNS IS OR ARE PENDING, THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT RELATIN G TO THOSE RETURNS SHALL ABATE. THE OBJECT OBVIOUSLY IS TO AVOID MULTIPLICIT Y OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ASS ESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS. ONCE SECTION 153A IS FOUND TO BE APPLICABLE, THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVI OUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED, IN WHICH THE "TOTALIN COME" OF THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ASSESSED OR REASSESSED. IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT ONLY THE PENDING ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF ANY THOSE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS THAT WILL ABATE; IN CASE THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT FOR ANY OF THOSE 6 YEARS HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH THEN THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY OF THEM ABATING FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT WHAT CAN ABATE IS ONLY WHAT REMA INS PENDING. 14. NOW THERE CAN BE A SITUATION WHEN DURING THE SE ARCH CONDUCTED ON ONE PERSON UNDER SECTION 132, SOME DOCUMENTS OR VALUABL E ASSETS OR BOOKS OF I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 12 ACCOUNT BELONGING TO SOME OTHER PERSON, IN WHOSE CA SE THE SEARCH IS NOT CONDUCTED, MAY BE FOUND. IN SUCH CASE, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS TO FIRST BE SATISFIED UNDER SECTION 153C, WHICH PROVIDES FOR TH E ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON, I.E., ANY OTHER PERSON WHO IS NOT COVERED BY THE SEARCH, THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR DOCUMENT BELONGS TO THE OTHER PERSON (PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARCHED). HE SHALL HAND OVER THE VALUABLE ARTICLE OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE OTHER PERSON. THEREAFT ER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE OTHER PERSON HAS TO PR OCEED AGAINST HIM AND ISSUE NOTICE TO THAT PERSON IN ORDER TO ASSESS OR R EASSESS THE INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN THE MANNER CONTEMPLATED BY THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 153A. NOW A QUESTION MAY ARISE AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER PERSON, IN OR DER TO EXAMINE THE QUESTION OF PENDING PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE TO ABATE . IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE DATE WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH T HE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR W ITHIN THE PERIOD OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS SHALL ABATE, IS THE DATE O F INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR THE REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A. FOR INSTANCE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, WITH REFERENCE TO THE PURI GROUP OF C OMPANIES, SUCH DATE WILL BE 5.1.2009. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER PERS ON, WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THE PETITIONER HEREIN, SUCH DATE WILL BE TH E DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISI TION BY THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER PERSON, THE QUESTION OF PENDENCY AND ABATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDIN GS OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT TO THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS WILL BE EX AMINED WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH DATE. IT NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT THE S ATISFACTION THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE REACHED BY THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER TH E SEARCHED PERSON IS THAT THE VALUABLE ARTICLE OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMEN TS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED P ERSON. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 153C(1) THAT THE AO SHOULD A LSO BE SATISFIED THAT SUCH VALUABLE ARTICLES OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE OTHER I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 13 PERSON MUST BE SHOWN TO SHOW TO CONCLUSIVELY REFLEC T OR DISCLOSE ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE REFERENCE OF PROVISO 1OF SEC TION 153C IS ONLY IN RELATION TO THE 2 ND PROVISO TO SUBSECTION 1 OF SECTION 153A WHICH SPEAKS ABOUT THE ABATEMENT OF THE PENDING PROCEEDINGS OF SIX ASSESSM ENT YEARS AND NOT REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRECEDING SIX ASSES SMENT YEAR WHICH WILL BE THE SAME AS IN SECTION 153A AS WELL AS IN SECTIO N 153C. 11. BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPE ALS), THE SAME CONTENTIONS WERE MADE AS MUCH AS IT WAS SOUGHT TO BE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 COUL D NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AS THE SAME WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 12. THE RATIO OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIT (APPEAL) IN THE MATTER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- FROM THE ABOVE SUBMISSION/ ARGUMENTS, THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN T HE CASE OF CIT-7 VS. M/S RRJ SECURITIES LTD., [2016] 380 ITR 612 (DELHI), WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF MATERIAL, WILL BE CONSTRUED AS THE REFERENCE DATE FOR INITIATION OF ACTION U/S. 153C OF THE ACT, AS AGAIN ST DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH, CONSTRUED THE REFERENCE DATE FOR INITIATION OF ACTI ON U/S 153A OF THE ACT. FROM THE ABOVE, FOLLOWING FACTS EMERGED: THE SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY THE A.O, OF M/S P RAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, IS 22.12.2014, AS WELL AS BY THE A.O. OF THE APPELLANT IS ON 22.12.2014, WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN AS THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF DOCUMENTS, AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 153C (1) OF THE ACT, THE REFERENCE DATE FOR TAKING ACTION U/S 153C, WILL BE AS 22.12.2014, IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, INSTEAD OF DATE OF SEARCH ON 30,10:2012, WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR TAKING ACTION U/S 153 A, AND THE 6 PRECEDING A.YS. , WILL BE FROM A.Y. 2009-10 T O A.Y. 2014-15 ONLY. I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 14 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT A.O, HAS WRONGLY I SSUED NOTICES U/S. 153C OF THE ACT, FOR A.Y. 2007-08, SINCE THE DOCUMENTS WERE HANDED OVER ON 22.12.2014. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O ., IS BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF 6 YEARS FROM THE REFERENCE DATE, PRESCRIB ED IN THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 153C(1) OF THE ACT AND I53A(1) OF THE ACT. FROM THESE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ACTION INITIATED U/S 153C OF THE ACT, FOR A.Y. 2007-08, IS BEYOND DIE TIME LIMITATION PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT, AS DIE REFERENCE DATE FOR TAKING ACTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT, IS 22,12.2014. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 153C/ 153A OF THE ACT, IS VOID AB-INI DO, AS THE A.O. HAS NO JURISDICTION FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 200 7-08, BEING BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 6 YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, I AGREE WITH THE AR GUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THE FACTS OF DIE APPELLANT ARE SQUARELY CO VERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI, IN D IE CASE OF CIT-7 VS. M/S RRJ SECURITIES LTD., (2016} 380 ITR 612 (DELHI) (SUPRA) . IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 153C/153A, IS VOID AB INITIO, SINCE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT, WAS IS SUED BEYOND LIMITATION PERIOD OF 6 YEARS FROM THE REFERENCE DATE OF 2242.2 014. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO, 3, IS HEREBY ALLOWED. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISS IONS AND HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND APPLI CABLE LAW, WE WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT. THE TERMINA L DATE FOR DETERMINATION OF SIX PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS THAT WOULD LAY UPON UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE AC T WOULD DECIDEDLY BE THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF THE DOCUMEN TS. HERE THE SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY THE A.O, OF M/S PRAKAS H INDUSTRIES LTD. IS 22.12.2014, AS WELL AS BY THE A.O. OF THE APPELLA NT IS ON 22.12.2014, WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN AS THE DATE OF HAN DING OVER OF DOCUMENTS AND DATE. SIX PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS BEGIN WITH A.Y. I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 15 2009-10 AND END WITH A.Y. 2014-15. IT WOULD BE THE DATE OF HANDING OVER THE DOCUMENTS OR DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFAC TION WILL BE THE DATE FOR DETERMINING THE DATE FOR CALCULATING THE P RECEEDING SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IS WELL SETTLED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RRJ SECURITIES (380 ITR 612) RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- HELD: IN TERMS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, A REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF THE SEARCH UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED AS THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF ASSETS/DOC UMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE (BEING THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE S EARCHED) TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE SAID ASSESSEE. FU RTHER PROCEEDINGS, BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 153C(1) OF THE ACT, WOULD HAVE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AND THE REFERENCE TO THE DA TE OF SEARCH WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED AS THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF REC ORDING OF SATISFACTION. IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHIC H ASSESSMENTS/REASSESSMENTS COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTI ON 153C OF THE ACT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED WITH REFERENCE TO T HE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF ASSETS/DOCUMENTS TO THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE. IN T HIS CASE, IT WOULD BE THE DATE OF THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION UNDER SEC TION 153C OF THE ACT, I.E., 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. IN THIS VIEW, THE ASSESSMENTS MADE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 WOULD BE BEYON D THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS AS RECKONED WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. IT I S CONTENDED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE RELEVANT SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS WOUL D 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 Y EARS 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 SEIZ ED FROM THE SEARCHED I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 16 PERSON, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENTS COULD BE REOPENED WOULD BE MUCH BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX YEARS. THIS IS SO BEC AUSE 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 O F THE SEARCH. THIS, IN OUR VIEW, WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE SCHEME OF SECTIO N 153C (1) OF THE ACT, WHICH CONSTRUES THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF ASSETS AND D OCUMENTS 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 ASSUM ES POSSESSION OF SEIZED ASSETS/DOCUMENTS ON SEARCH OF THE ASSESSEE; THE 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/DOCUME NTS 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 OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, ACCEPT THE CONTENTION THAT IN ANY VI EW OF THE MATTER, ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2003-04 AND AY 2004-05 WERE OUTSI DE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND THE AO HAD NO JURISDICT ION TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME FOR THAT YE AR. 14 THIS JUDGEMENT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF: I) ARN INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD. (81 TAXMANN.COM 260) HAS HELD THAT: HELD: THE DECISION IN RRJ SECURITIES LTD. (SUPRA) IS CATE GORICAL THAT UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, THE PERIOD OF SIX YEARS AS REGARDS THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON WOULD COMMENCE ONLY FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SATISFACTION NOT IS PREPARED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND A NOTICE IS ISSUED PURSUANT THERETO. THE DATE OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE IS 21ST JULY, 2014 AND THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 23RD JULY 2014. THE P REVIOUS SIX AYS I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 17 WOULD THEREFORE BE FROM AY 2009-10 TO AY 2014-15. T HIS WOULD THEREFORE NOT INCLUDE AYS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. THE DECISION IN RRJ SECURITIES LTD. (SUPRA) IS ALSO AN AUTHORITY FOR TH E PROPOSITION THAT FOR THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C TO BE VALID, THE RE HAD TO BE A SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHE D PERSON. THE COURT ALSO STATED THAT - THIS POSITION AGAIN STANDS SETTLED BY THE DECISION IN RRJ SECURITIES LTD (SUPRA). THE FAC T THAT THE REVENUE'S SLP AGAINST THE SAID DECISION IS PENDING IN THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE SINE THE O PERATION OF THE SAID DECISION HAS NOT BEEN STAYED. II) HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF RAJ BUILDWORTH PVT. LTD. (113 TAXMANN.COM 600) HAS HELD THAT: DATED 23.10.2018 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCH PARTY AND THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE WAS THE SAME. IN SUCH A FACTUAL MATRIX, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN I NITIATED AND PASSED AN ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 153C O F THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS THE SAME WAS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE SATISFACTION NOTE W AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. III) HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF SARWAR AGENCY PVT. LTD. (85 TAXMANN.COM 269) HAS HELD THAT: HELD: MR. ASHOK MANCHANDA, LEARNED SENIOR STANDING COUNSE L FOR THE APPELLANT, SOUGHT TO PURSUE THIS COURT TO RECONSIDE R ITS VIEW IN RRJ SECURITIES (SUPRA). THE COURT DECLINES TO DO SO FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON. FIRST, FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO IT, THE RE VENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN RRJ SECURI TIES (SUPRA) IN THE SUPREME COURT. THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THIS COURT AS WEL L AS BY THIS COURT. THIRDLY, THE RECENT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 153 C (1) OF THE ACT STATES FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT FOR BOTH THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE OTHER PERSON THE PERIOD OF REASSESSM ENT WOULD BE SIX AYS PRECEDING THE YEAR OF SEARCH. THE SAID A MENDMENT IS PROSPECTIVE. I.T.A. NO. 4045/DEL/2017 18 15. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, WE HOLD THAT NO ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153C COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2007-08 AS IT WAS CLEARLY BARRED BY LIMITATION. HENCE, THERE IS NO OPTION BUT TO ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT AND ALL CONSE QUENT ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ALSO STAND DELETED. 16. AS A RESULT, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (APPEAL) UP HOLDING THE DECISION OF QUASHING OF ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 BEING BA RRED BY LIMITATION IS UPHELD AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEP ARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 17. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO GO INTO THE MERI TS OF THE CASE SINCE THE ASSESSMENT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND, THEREFOR E, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH JULY, 2021 SD/- SD/- [DR. B.R.R. KUMAR] [AMIT SHUKLA] [ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 9/07/2021 PKK: