Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0042 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 11 month(s) 30 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
18-06-2021
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
19-06-2017
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I .T.AS. NO.4051, 4052/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08, 2008-09 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI. VS. M/S. ANKIT NIVESH & MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., 203 PUJA HOUSE, KARAMPURA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. TAN/PAN: AACCA2546A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI AJAY WADHWA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SUSHMA SINGH, CIT-D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 24/03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18/06/2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM THE AFORESAID APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENU E ARE THE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) 30, NEW DELHI, PERTAINING TO A.Y.2007-08 AND 2008-09, W HEREIN THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT TH EY ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE US ARE REPRODUCED UNDER: I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 2 ITA NO.4051/DEL/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE A.O TO D ELETE THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE I T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CA SH CREDITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,75,00,000/- ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE INITI ATION OF ACTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT, FOR COMPLETING ASSESSMENT U/S 153C/153A OF THE ACT, IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. RRJ SECURITIES LTD. BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND SLP AGAINST THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY RELYING ON THE DEC ISION IN THE CASE OF SH. KABUL CHAWLA BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND SLP AGAINST THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ARRIVING AT THE CO NCLUSION THAT THE WORDS TOTAL INCOME AS USED IN SECTION 153C/153A WOULD O NLY MEAN UNDISCLOSED INCOME DISCOVERED FROM SEIZED / INCRIMINATING MATER IAL. 5. ON THE FACTS AND 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. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLU SION THAT THE WORDS TOTAL INCOME AS USED IN SECTION 153C/153A WOULD ONLY MEA N 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 09.08.2014 HAS HELD THAT TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES INCO ME UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH AND ANY OTHER INCOME. I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 3 7. THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 8. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, A LTER OR FORGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO.4052/DEL/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED CASH CREDITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,98,93,870/- ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,87,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE 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 THAT THE INITI ATION OF ACTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT, FOR COMPLETING ASSESSMENT U/S 153C/153A OF THE ACT, IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. RRJ SECURITIES LTD. BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND SLP AGAINST THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY RELYING ON THE DEC ISION IN THE CASE OF SH. KABUL CHAWLA BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND SLP AGAINST THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ARRIVING AT THE CO NCLUSION THAT THE WORDS TOTAL INCOME AS USED IN SECTION 153C/153A WOULD O NLY MEAN UNDISCLOSED INCOME DISCOVERED FROM SEIZED / INCRIMINATING MATER IAL. 6 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , 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. I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 4 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLU SION THAT THE WORDS TOTAL INCOME AS USED IN SECTION 153C/153A WOULD ONLY MEA N 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 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 TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE C OMMON, ARISING OUT OF SIMILAR SET OF FACTS AND ADDITIONS M ADE ARE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS, THEREFORE, SAME WERE HEARD TOGETH ER ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAT OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVINENCE WE ARE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FAC TS OF ITA NO. 4051/D/2017 AY 2007-08. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT, CONSEQUENT TO A SEARCH DA TED 30.10.2012 CONDUCTED ON M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD (PIL IN SHORT) UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 19.09.2014 ON THE GROUND THAT THE DOCUM ENTS/MATERIAL BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH ON PIL. SATISFACTION NOTES BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U NDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) I N THE CAPACITY OF THE AO SEARCHED PERSON, I.E., PIL AND ALSO IN THE C APACITY OF THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WERE DULY COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED OBJECTIONS AG AINST THE ISSUANCE I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 5 OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND ALSO AG AINST THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO. THE OBJECTIONS WER E CONSIDERED AND DISPOSED OFF BY THE AO. 5. THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE LD. AO IN H IS ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ON 31.03.2015: A. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LT D. OF RS. 3.75 CRORES AND RS. 5,98,93,870/- IN AY 2007-08 AND 2008 09 RESPECTIVELY ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. B. UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN THE FORM OF BROKERAGE AM OUNTING TO RS.4,87,000/- IN AY 2008-09. 6. THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) TOOK A JURISDICTIONAL GROUND CONTENDING I NTER-ALIA THAT THE ASSESSMENT, SO FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT , IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS ON RECORD AND DETAILS, HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 153C IS VOI D-AB-INITIO AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION FOR MAKIN G THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2007-08, BEING BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 6 YEARS. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED HEREUND ER: FOR THE ABOVE SUBMISSION/ ARGUMENTS, THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF D ELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT-7 VS. M/S RRJ SECURITIES LTD. [2016] 380 1TR 61 2 (DELHI), WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF M ATERIAL, WILL BE CONSTRUED AS THE REFERENCE DATE FOR INITIATION OF A CTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT, AS AGAINST DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH, C ONSTRUED THE REFERENCE DATE FOR INITIATION OF ACTION U/S 153A OF THE ACT. I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 6 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 UNDAT ED, SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE A.O. OF THE APPELLANT IS ON 19,9,20 14, WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN AS THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF DOCUMENTS, AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 153C (I) OF THE ACT, THE REFERENCE DATE FOR LAKING ACTION U/S I53C, WILL BE AS 19,9.2014, IN TH E CASE OF APPELLANT, INSTEAD OF DATE OF SEARCH ON 30.10.2012, WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR TAKING ACTION U/S 153 A OF THE ACT, AN D THE 6 PRECEDING A.YS., WILL BE FROM A.Y. 2009-10 TO A.Y. 2014-15 ONLY. 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 AND A.Y. 2008-09, SINCE THE DOCUMENTS WERE HANDED OVER ON 19.9.2014, THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O., IS BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF 6 YEARS FROM THE REFERENCE DATE, PRESCRIBED IN THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 153C (1) OF THE ACT AND 15 3 A (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 THE TIME LIMITATION PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT, AS THE REFERENCE DATE FOR TAKING ACTION U/S. 153C OF THE ACT, IS 19.9.201 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, 1 AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S. 153C/ 153 A OF THE ACT, I S VOID AB-INITIO, AS THE A.O. HAS NO JURISDICTION FOR MAKING THE ASSE SSMENT FOR A.Y.2007-08, BEING BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 6 YEARS. AC CORDINGLY, I AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THE FA CTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI, IN THE CASE OF CIT-7 VS. M/S R RJ SECURITIES LTD., (2016} 380 HR 612 (DELHI) (SUPRA). IN THESE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES, 1 HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 153C/153A, I S VOID AB INITIO, I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 7 SINCE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT, WAS ISSUED BEYOND LIMITATION PERIOD OF 6 YEARS FROM THE REFERENCE DATE OF 19.9.2014. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3, IS HEREBY ALLOWED. 7. BEFORE US, LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, SUBMIT TED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C COMES INTO PLAY ONLY ON HA NDING OVER OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE FOUND DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON TO THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE ON 30.10.2012 AND THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE HANDED OVER TO THE AO ON 19.09.2014 WHICH IS ALSO THE DATE OF RECORDING OF THE SATISFAC TION NOTE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC DATE OF HANDING OVER OF MATE RIAL IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFA CTION WILL BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE OF HANDING OVER THE MATERIAL. SATISFACT ION NOTES ARE PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 26-31 OF THE APPELLANTS PAPER BOOK. 8. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT, ONCE THE DO CUMENTS ARE HANDED OVER TO THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE, SIX PREC EDING ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF THE DOCUMENTS LAY OPEN FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 153 A OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, SIX PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE HANDING OVER OF THE DOCUMENTS, I.E. 19. 09.2014, ARE BEGINNING FROM A.Y. 2009-10 TO 2014-15. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT RELATES TO A.Y. 2007-08. TH IS ASSESSMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REOPENED FOR ACTION UNDER SECTI ON 153C SINCE FIRST OF THE SIX PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR IS A.Y. 2 009-10 AND NOT A.Y. 2007-08. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, A. Y. 2007-08 DOES I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 8 NOT COME INTO THE PURVIEW OF THE SIX PRECEDING ASSE SSMENT YEARS AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. 9. IN SUPPORT, THE AR HAD FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS I N THIS REGARD AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HO N'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RRJ SECURITIES (380 ITR 612), ARN INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD. (81 TAXMANN.COM 260), RAJ BUILDWORTH PVT. LTD. (113 TAXMANN.COM 600), SARWAR AGENCY PVT. LTD. (85 TAXMANN.COM 269). BESIDES THIS OTHER JUDGEMENTS OF THIS TRIBUNAL WAS FILED, LIKE, R.L. AL LIED SERVICES (54 TAXMANN.COM 222), INLAY MARKETING PRIVATE LTD . (60 TAXMANN.COM 431, LAIRY DISTRIBUTORS 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.) THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN I N THESE JUDGMENTS ITS CLEAR THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ROPE IN AY 2007-08 IS BEYOND 6 YEARS AND THEREFORE ORDER OF CIT (A) IS LEGALLY CORRECT. LD. AR HAS ALSO FILED W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS, RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH ARE REPRODUC ED UNDER FOR UNDERSTANDING THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED:- BRIEF FACTS: 1. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INVESTME NT AND SALE PURCHASE OF SHARES DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 OF I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 9 THE ACT ON 30.10.2007 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 729/- . 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 19.09. 2014 CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES GROUP OF COMPA NIES ON 30.10.2012. COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED IS ATTACHED AT PAGE NO. 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY IN RESPONSE TO THE AFORESA ID NOTICE VIDE LETTER DATED 25.02.2015 REQUESTED THE L D. AO TO PROVIDE THE COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED B Y HIM AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SEARCHED PERSON AN D ALSO REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF SEARCH AND THE MATERIAL SEIZED AND RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AO FOR RECORDING THE SATISFACTION REQUIRED U/S 153C OF THE ACT. (REFER PAGE NO. 22-23 OF THE PB) 4. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 27.02.2015 AGAIN REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE AND SEIZED MATERIAL RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AO FOR RECOR DING THE SATISFACTION REQUIRED U/S 153C OF THE ACT AND S TATED THAT THE RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT MAY BE TREATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 153C OF THE ACT (REFER PAGE NO. 24-25 OF PB) 5. THE LD. AO PROVIDED THE COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY HIM AND THE AO OF SEARCHED PERSON BUT N EVER PROVIDE THE COPY OF SEIZED MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED. (COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 10 RECORDED BY THE AO OF SEARCHED PERSON IS ATTACHED AT PAGE NO. 26-28 AND COPY OF NOTE RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE IS AT PAGE NO. 29-31 OF THE PAPE R BOOK) 6. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 04.03.2015 THE ASSES SEE HAD FILED DETAILED OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE INITIATIO N OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. REFER PAGE NO. 38-39 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 7. THEREAFTER THE LD. AO ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142(1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASKED FOR THE VARIOUS DETAILS INCLUDING DETAILS OF SHARES SOL D WHICH WERE HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE AND THE INVESTMENTS MAD E IN M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. 8. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. AO TH E ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE L D. AO FROM TIME TO TIME. 9. IN SPITE OF THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS AND DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. AO, THE LD. AO H AD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OF THE ACT ON 31.03.2015 WITHOUT PASSING THE SPEAKING ORDER DISPO SING OFF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY A GAINST THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THE LD. AO MADE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS TO THE RET URNED INCOME: A. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LT D. OF RS. 3.75 CRORES ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. - REFER PAGE NO. 23 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 11 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. AO THE ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED. THE ASSESSE E PUT FORTH HIS ARGUMENTS AND FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND ON MERITS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 30 (LD. CIT (A)). COPY OF SUBMISSIONS DATED 11.03.2017 AND 21.02.2017 FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS ATTACHED AT PAGE NO. 76-36 2 AND 363 369 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 11. THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER EXAMINING THE CASE IN DETAIL PASSED THE ORDER ON 31.03.2017 IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSE E ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IS VOID-AB-INITIO AS THE AO HAS NO JURISDIC TION TO FOR MAKING 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 DEPARTMENT HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HONOURS. I. ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS BARRED BY LIMITATION; NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153C DESERVES TO BE QUASHED I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 12 1. YOUR HONOURS, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. ON 30.10.2012. THE SEARCHED PERSON IS M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. AND THE ASSESSEE IS OTHER PERSON IN TERMS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. 2. THE DATE OF SEARCH IS 30.10.2012 AND THE DATE OF RE CORDING SATISFACTION BY THE LD. AO IS 19.09.2014. IN ABSENC E OF ANY SPECIFIC DATE OF HANDING OVER OF MATERIAL IN TH E SATISFACTION NOTE, IT WAS ONLY ON 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2 014, THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION WILL BE ASSUMED T O BE THE DATE OF HANDING 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 DAT E 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 SPECIFIC DATE OF HAN DING OVER OF MATERIAL, THE DATE OF RECORDING SATISFACTIO N I.E, 19.09.2014 IS TO BE TREATED AS THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF MATERIAL AND THEREFORE THE SIX AYS PRECEDING THE YE AR OF THE SEARCH, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS PROPOSED T O 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. I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 13 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 SEIZED ASSETS WOULD BE THE RELEVANT DATE FOR AP PLYING 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: A. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF RRJ SECURITIES (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 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 SEARC HED) TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE SAID ASSES SEE. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 153C(1) OF THE ACT, WOULD HAVE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIO N 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 SECTI ON I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 14 153C OF THE ACT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED WIT H REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF ASSETS/DOC UMENTS TO THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD B E THE DATE OF THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, I.E., 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. IN THIS VIEW, T HE ASSESSMENTS MADE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 3- 04 AND 2004-05 WOULD BE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS AS RECKONED WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO OF THE SEARC HED 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 YEA R IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE CAN BE REOPENED BUT IN CASE OF ANY OTHER PERSON, WHO IS NOT SEARCHED BU T 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/DOCUM ENTS 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 SECTION 15 3C (1) OF THE ACT, WHICH CONSTRUES THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF ASSETS I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 15 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 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 TH AT THE ASSETS/DOCUMENTS DO NOT BELONG TO THE SEARCHED PERSON. THUS, THE DATE ON WHICH THE AO OF THE PERSO N 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 200 4-05 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. B. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF 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 S IX YEARS AS REGARDS THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSO N I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 16 WOULD COMMENCE ONLY FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SATISFACTION NOT IS PREPARED BY THE AO OF THE SEARC HED PERSON AND A NOTICE IS ISSUED PURSUANT THERETO. THE DATE OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE IS 21ST JULY, 2014 AND THE NO TICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 23RD JU LY 2014. THE PREVIOUS SIX AYS WOULD THEREFORE BE FROM AY 2009-10 TO AY 2014-15. THIS WOULD THEREFORE NOT INC LUDE AYS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. THE DECISION IN RRJ SECURI TIES LTD. (SUPRA) IS ALSO AN AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITI ON THAT FOR THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C TO BE VALID, THE RE HAD TO BE A SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. THE COURT ALSO STATED THAT - THIS POSITION AGAIN STANDS SETTLED BY THE DECISION IN RRJ SECURITIES LTD (SUPR A). THE FACT THAT THE REVENUE'S SLP AGAINST THE SAID DECISION IS PENDING IN THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE SINE THE OPERATION OF THE SAID DECISION HAS NOT BEEN STAYED. C. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF RAJ BUILDWORTHPVT. 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 I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 17 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. D. 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 R ECONSIDER ITS VIEW IN RRJ SECURITIES (SUPRA). THE COURT DECLI NES TO DO SO FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON. FIRST, FOR REASONS BES T KNOWN TO IT, THE REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN RRJ SECURITIES (SUPRA) IN THE SUPREME COUR T. THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THIS COURT AS WELL AS BY THIS COU RT. THIRDLY, THE RECENT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 153 C(1) O F THE ACT STATES FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT FOR BOTH THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE OTHER PERSON THE PERIOD OF REASSESSMENT WOULD BE SIX AYS PRECEDING THE YEAR OF SEARCH. THE SAID AMENDMENT IS PROSPECTIVE. E. HONBLE ITAT DELHI R.L. ALLIED SERVICES (54 TAXMANN.COM 222) HELD: IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US, AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF HIS ORDER, THE SEIZED I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 18 MATERIAL WAS RECEIVED ON 12TH MARCH, 2009 FROM ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-17. THUS, THE YEAR IN WHICH SEIZED M ATERIAL WAS SEIZED IS PREVIOUS YEAR 2008-09 RELEVANT TO AY 2009- 10. THE PRECEDING SIX YEARS WOULD BE AY 2008-09, 20 07- 08, 2006-07, 2005-06, 2004-05 AND 2003-04. THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE AND COMBINED READING OF SECTION 153C AS WELL AS SECTION 153A, IN OUR OPINION, THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 153C FOR AY 2001-02 & 2002-03 IS BARRED BY LIMITATI ON. ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE SAME AND CONSEQUENTIALLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN PURSUANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153C IS ALSO QUASHED. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT (ITA NO. 570/ 2016) IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IT WAS ONLY ON 24TH MARCH 2009 THAT THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE RECEIVE D THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED AND IT WAS ON THAT DATE A NOTICE U NDER SECTION 153C (1) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS COURT FINDS NO LEGAL E RROR IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE ITAT THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 153C (1) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR AYS 2001-02 AND 2002- 03. F. HONBLE ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF INLAY MARKETING PRIVATE LTD. (60 TAXMANN.COM 431) HAS HELD THAT: I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 19 HELD: VIEW OF ABOVE DECISION AND AS PER LETTER AND SPIRIT OF S. 153(1) OF THE ACT, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT SIN CE IN THIS CASE SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED ON 5TH JULY, 2010 AN D NOTICE UNDER S. 153C WAS ISSUED ON 6TH JULY, 2010, THE ONLY CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE AO OF SUCH OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN SEARCHED HAS TAKEN OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ON 5TH JULY, 2010 . ACCORDINGLY, AS PER S. 153A(1) OF THE ACT, THE AO C AN ISSUE A NOTICE UNDER S. 153A OF THE ACT FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED AND FOR THE PURPOSE O F S. 153C OF THE ACT ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE DOCUMENT I S HANDED OVER TO THE AO OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATEL Y PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVI OUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITI ON OR HANDING OVER OF DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL IS MADE. IN TH E CASE IN HAND, THE RELEVANT DATE OF HANDING OVER MAY EASI LY BE INFERRED FROM SATISFACTION NOTE I.E. 5TH JULY, 2010 AND, THUS, RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR IS 2010-11 AND OBVIOUS LY THE ASST. YR. WOULD BE ASST. YR. 2011-12. WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTI CE UNDER S. 153C OF THE ACT, DT. 5TH JULY, 2010 FOR AS ST. YRS. 2003-04 AND 2004-05 ON 6TH JULY, 2010 WHICH IS CLEA RLY BARRED BY LIMITATION. I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 20 G. HONBLE ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF LAIRY DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. (74 TAXMANN.COM 122) HELD: ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE OTHER PERS ON RECORDED SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C ON 9-9-2013 A ND WHEN THE CIT-DR COULD NOT ASSIST ABOUT THE RECEIVIN G OF DOCUMENTS ETC. BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE OTHE R PERSON THE DATE OF RECORDING SATISFACTION I.E., 9-9-2013 I S TREATED AS DATE OF RECEIVING DOCUMENTS ETC. THUS LIMITATION PERIOD FOR CALCULATION OF ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER THE AMBIT OF SECTION 153C SHOULD BE RECKONED FROM 9-9-2013 RELEV ANT TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AND HENCE THE SIX YEARS UNDER SCANNER WOULD BE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 201314. IN THIS SITUATI ON THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 -07 WOULD BE BEYOND LIMITATION PERIOD AND SAME HAS TO B E HELD AS BAD IN LAW AND INVALID JURISDICTION. H. HONBLE ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF CHAMPAK NIKETANPVT. LTD. (ITA NO. 5692/DEL/2016) DATED 25.05.2018 HAS HELD THAT: SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO THE DOCUMENTS WERE H ANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 03.12.2013 AND ACT ION U/S 153C WAS ALSO INITIATED ON 03.12.2013 A FINDING GIV EN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR, THEREFORE, THE SIX PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS WILL BE FROM A.Y . I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 21 2008-09 TO 2013-14. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 153C TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THEREFORE, TH E SAME BEING BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX PRECEDING ASSES SMENT YEARS FROM THE REFERENCE DATE IS VOID AB-INITIO. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 153C/153A FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS VOID AB-INITIO SINCE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION FOR MAKING TH E ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 BEING BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX YEARS. SINCE THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) HOLDING TH E ASSESSMENT AS VOID AB-INITIO. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVE NUE ARE DISMISSED. I. DSL PROPERTIES (P.) LTD. V. DY. CIT [2013] 60 SOT 88/33 TAXMANN.COM 420 (DELHI - TRIB.) AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 153C, THE DATE OF SEARCH IS TO BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. LEARNED DR HAS STATED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SUCH OTHER PE RSON WAS THE SAME, NO HANDING OVER OR TAKING OVER OF THE I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 22 DOCUMENT WAS REQUIRED. THAT SECTION 153C(1) AND ITS PROVISO HAVE TO BE READ TOGETHER IN A HARMONIOUS MA NNER. WHILE INTERPRETING SECTION 153C, WE HAVE ALREADY HE LD THAT FOR INITIATING VALID JURISDICTION UNDER SECTIO N 153C, EVEN IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHE D AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IS THE S AME, HE HAS TO FIRST RECORD THE SATISFACTION IN THE FILE OF THE PERSON SEARCHED AND THEREAFTER, SUCH NOTE ALONGWITH THE SE IZED DOCUMENT/BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS TO BE PLACED IN THE FI LE OF SUCH OTHER PERSON. THE DATE ON WHICH THIS EXERCISE IS DONE WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. THOUGH WHILE EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE WE HAVE ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT NO SUCH EXERCISE HAS BEEN PR OPERLY CARRIED OUT AND THEREFORE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C ITSELF IS INVALID, HOWEVER, SINCE BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE ARGUED THE ISSUE OF PERIOD OF LIMITATI ON ALSO, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME. SINCE IN THIS CASE SATISFACTION IS RECORDED ON 21ST JUNE, 2010 AN D NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C IS ALSO ISSUED ON THE SAM E DATE, THEN ONLY CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SUCH OTHER PERSON HAS TAKEN OV ER THE POSSESSION OF SEIZED DOCUMENT ON 21ST JUNE, 2010. ACCORDINGLY, AS PER SECTION 153(1), THE ASSESSING O FFICER CAN ISSUE THE NOTICE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED (FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 153C THE I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 23 DOCUMENT IS HANDED OVER) AND SIX ASSE SSMENT YEARS PRECEDING SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR. NOW, IN THIS CASE, THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE DOCUMENT IS HANDED OVER IS 1ST APRIL, 2010 TO 31ST MARCH, 2011. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT-DR HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WHICH READS AS UNDER: SUB: WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE ABOVE CASES - REG. WITH RESPECT TO THE GROUND THAT THE INITIATION OF PR OCEEDINGS U/S 153 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. IN THIS REGARD THE FOLL OWING MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED: IT IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153C OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH IS AS BELOW: 153C. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SEC TION 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AN D SECTION 153, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT A NY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING O R BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTI ON 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON 3A [AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE OTHE R PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A, IF, THAT ASSESSING I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 24 OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOC UMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAVE A BEARING ON TH E DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERS ON FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS REFERRED TO IN SU B-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A PROVIDED THAT IN CASE OF SUCH OTHER PER SON, THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UND ER SECTION 132 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A IN THE S ECOND PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOC UMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. THE POSITION OF LAW IS VERY CLEAR AND THERE IS NO AMB IGUITY IN THE ACT. THIS IS FURTHER CLARIFIED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SSP AVIATION LTD. VS. DCI T IN W.P.C. NO. 309/2011 DATED 29.03.2012 IN PARA NO. 13, 14 & 15 W HICH ARE AS UNDER:- 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 REQUISITION . THIS SECTION APPLIES TO A PERSON IN WHOSE CASE A SEARCH IS INITIA TED UNDER SECTION 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ETC. ARE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION132A. 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 ASSES SMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT T O THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQ UISITION IS MADE. THE ASSESSEE, ON RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE FROM TH E ASSESSING I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 25 OFFICER, SHALL FURNISH THE RETURNS OF INCOME AND THE REAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO ASSESS OR RE- ASS ESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLI NG WITHIN SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS. NOW, A QUESTION MAY ARISE AS TO W HAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE REGULAR RETURNS, IF ANY, FILED BY THE SEARCHED ASSESSEE FOR ANY OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH ARE PENDING ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE SEARCH WAS INITIATE. THE AN SWER IS GIVEN BY THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A, WHICH SAYS THA T IF ANY OF THOSE RETURNS IS OR ARE PENDING, THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT RELATING TO THOSE RETURNS SHALL ABATE. THE OBJECT OB VIOUSLY IS TO AVOID MULTIPLICITY OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS. ONCE SECTION 153A IS FOUND TO BE APPLICABLE, THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE ASSES SMENT IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIA TELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOU S YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED, IN WHICH THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ASSESSED OR REASSESSED. IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT ONLY THE PENDING ASSESSMENT OR REAS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF ANY THOSE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS THAT WILL ABATE; IN CASE THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT FO R ANY OF THOSE 6 YEARS HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH THEN THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY OF THEM ABA TING 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 DOCU MENTS OR VALUABLE ASSETS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BELONGING TO SO ME OTHER PERSON, IN WHOSE CASE THE SEARCH IS NOT CONDUCTED, M AY BE FOUND. I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 26 IN SUCH CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO FIRST BE SATISFIED UNDER SECTION 153C, WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF I NCOME 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 O R BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE OTHER PERSON. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE OTHER PERSON HAS TO PROCEED AG AINST HIM AND ISSUE NOTICE TO THAT PERSON IN ORDER TO ASSESS OR REA SSESS THE INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN THE MANNER CONTEMPLA TED BY THE PROVISIONS 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 ORDER TO EXAMINE THE QUESTION OF PENDING PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE TO ABATE. IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE DATE WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH THE PROCEEDI NGS FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR W ITHIN THE PERIOD OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS SHALL ABATE, IS THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR THE RE QUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A. FOR INSTANCE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, WI TH REFERENCE TO THE PURI GROUP OF COMPANIES, SUCH DATE WILL BE 5.1.200 9. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER PERSON, WHICH IN T HE PRESENT CASE IS THE PETITIONER HEREIN, SUCH DATE WILL BE THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSE TS SEIZED OR REQUISITION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDIC TION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER PERSON, THE QUESTION OF PENDENCY AND ABATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESS MENT OR I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 27 REASSESSMENT TO THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS WILL BE EXAM INED WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH DATE. IT NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT THE SATISFACTION THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE REACHED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE SEARCHED PERSON IS THAT THE VALUABLE ARTICLE OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEI ZED DURING THE SEARCH BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCH ED PERSON. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 153C(1) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ALSO BE SATISFIED THAT SUCH VALUABLE ARTICLES OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE OTHE R PERSON MUST BE SHOWN TO SHOW TO CONCLUSIVELY REFLECT 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 S ECTION 153A WHICH SPEAKS ABOUT THE ABATEMENT OF THE PENDING PROC EEDINGS OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS AND NOT REGARDING THE ASSESSME NT OF THE PRECEDING SIX ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH WILL BE THE SAME A S IN SECTION 153A AS WELL AS IN SECTION 153C. DECISION 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PERUSE D THE RELEVANT FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AS WE LL AS MATERIAL REFERRED TO BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN T HE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT AND SALE PURCHASE OF SHARES DURING THE R ELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139 OF THE ACT ON 30.10.2007 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.729/-. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S.132 ON M/S. PRAKASH INDUS TRIES OF I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 28 COMPANIES ON 31.10.2012 SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.153C AND PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C WAS INITIATED AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE ON 19.09.2014. HERE IN THI S CASE THOUGH THE DATE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH INDUSTRIES WA S 30.10.2012 HOWEVER THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ON 19.09.2014. SINCE THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DATE O F HANDING OF MATERIAL IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, THEN DATE OF 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 IS TO BE RECKONED AS DATE OF HANDING OVER THE MATER IAL AND THE TIME LIMIT OF CALCULATING THE SIX YEARS HAS TO BE CALCUL ATED FROM THIS DATE. PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT BY FINANCE ACT, 2017, IN TERM S 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 SPECIF IC DATE OF HANDING OVER OF MATERIAL, THE DATE OF RECORDING SAT ISFACTION I.E, 19.09.2014 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 BEA.Y. 2009-10 TO A.Y. 2014-15. 12. CONSEQUENTLY THE NOTICE U/S. 153C(1) COULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2014-15. PRIOR TO T HE AMENDMENT BROUGHT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2017 THE DATE ON WHICH T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARCHED A SSUMES THE POSSESSION OF THE SEIZED ASSETS WOULD BE THE RELEVA NT DATE FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 29 13. IN THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAVE CLEARLY HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SIX YEARS WOULD HAVE TO BE COUNTED FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH SATISFACTION NOTE IS PREPARE D. A. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF RRI SECU RITIES (380ITR 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 SECT ION 153A OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED AS THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF ASSETS/DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE (BEING T HE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARCHED) TO THE AO HAVING JURIS DICTION TO ASSESS THE SAID ASSESSEE. FURTHER 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 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/REASSESSMENT S COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF HANDING OVE R 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., 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. IN THIS VIEW, T HE ASSESSMENTS MADE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 200 4-05 WOULD BE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS AS REC KONED WITH REFERENCE TO THE 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 ASSESSME NT YEARS PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIO US YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. IF THIS INTERPRETAT ION AS CANVASSED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCEPTED, IT WOULD MEAN THAT WHEREAS IN CASE OF A PERSON SEARCHED, ASSESSMENTS I N RELATION TO SIX PREVIOUS YEARS PRECEDING THE YEAR I N WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE CAN BE REOPENED BUT IN CASE OF A NY OTHER PERSON, WHO IS NOT SEARCHED BUT HIS ASSETS ARE SEIZ ED FROM THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSES SMENTS COULD BE REOPENED WOULD BE MUCH BEYOND THE PERIOD O F 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 I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 30 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 ASSESSEE: THE SEI ZED ASSETS/DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO A PERSON OTHER THAN A SEARCHED PERSON COME INTO POSSESSION OF THE AO OF T HAT PERSON ONLY AFTER THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSETS/DOCUMENTS DO NOT BELONG TO THE SEAR CHED PERSON. THUS, THE DATE ON WHICH THE AO OF THE PERSO N 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 VIEW OF THE MATTER, ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2 003-04 AND AY 2004-05 WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153C OF T HE ACT AND THE AO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME FOR THAT YEAR. B. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF 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 COMMENC E 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 JULY2014 . THE PREVIOUS SIX AYS WOULD THEREFORE BE FROM AY 2009-10 TO AY 20 14-15. THIS WOULD THEREFORE NOT INCLUDE AYS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 . THE DECISION IN RRJ SECURITIES LTD. (SUPRA) IS ALSO AN AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT FOR THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C TO BE V ALID, THERE HAD TO BE A SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SE ARCHED PERSON. THE COURT ALSO STATED THAT - THIS POSITION AGAIN STANDS SETTLED BV THE DECISION IN RRI SECURITIES LTD (SUPRA). THE FACT THAT THE REVENUE'S SLP AGAINST THE SAID DECISION IS PEND ING IN THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE SINE THE O PERATION OF THE SAID DECISION HAS NOT BEEN STAYED. C. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF RAJ BUILDWORTHPVT. LTD. (113 TAXMANN.COM 600) HAS HELD THAT: DATED - 23.10.2018 I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 31 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCH PARTY AND THE R ESPONDENT ASSESSEE WAS THE SAME. IN SUCH A FACTUAL MATRIX, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INITIATED AND PASSED AN ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS THE SAME WAS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX YE ARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE SATISFAC TION NOTE WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. D. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF SARWAR A GENCY 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 BV THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THIS COURT AS WEL L AS BV THIS COURT. THIRDLY, THE RECENT AMENDMENT TO SECTIO N 153 C(L) 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 AMENDMENT IS PROSPECTIVE. 14. THIS PROPOSITION HAS ALSO BEEN UPHELD AND FOLLOWED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN CATENA OF JUDGMENT AS CITED BY THE LD. C OUNSEL. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WE HOLD THAT IS A TERMINA L DATE FOR DETERMINING OF SIX PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR TH E PURPOSE OF SECTION 153C R.W.S. 153A WOULD BE THE DATE OF HANDI NG OVER THE DOCUMENTS OR THE DATED OF RECORDING OF THE SATISFAC TION. ADMITTEDLY, THE SIX PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE IS FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND ENDING ON 2014-15. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT LD. CIT (A) WAS CORRECT IN LAW THAT NO ASSESSMENT U/S.153C WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08 AND IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. I.T.AS. NO. 4051 & 4052/DEL/2017 32 15. SIMILARLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ALSO WE NEED TH E SAME FATE WHICH IS ALSO BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF S IX YEARS AS STATED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS U PHELD AND THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH JUNE, 2021 SD/- SD/- [B.R.R. KUMAR] [AMIT SHUKLA] [ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18/06/2021 PKK:
