ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI V. SANSKRITI TIE UP PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 4058/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9835 (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: G
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department 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: 153A; 13; 153; 153C; 68; 132; 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.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI. VS. M/S. SANSKRITI TIE UP PVT. LTD., 203, PUJA HOUSE, KARAMPURA COMMERICAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. TAN/PAN: AALCS2575G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI AJAY WADHWA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI SUSHMA SINGH, CIT-D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 12 04 2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09 07 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM : THE AFORESAID APPEAL PERTAINING TO A.Y.2008-09 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XXX, NEW DELHI WHEREIN THE A SSESSMENT HAS BEEN QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS BARRED BY LIMI TATION. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE US ARE REPRODUCED UNDER: 1 . ON THE FACTS AND IN (HE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE A 0. TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CA SH CREDITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 24,68,00,000/-, I.T.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 2 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. 12,34,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT O F 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 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 BY RELYING ON THE DECISIO N IN THE EASE OF SH. KABUL CHAWLA 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. 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 CONCLU SION THAT THE WORDS 'TOTAL INCOME' AS USED IN SECTION 153C/153A WOULD O NLY MEAN UNDISCLOSED INCOME DISCOVERED FROM SEIZED / INCRIMI NATING MATERIAL. 6. 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. 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. I.T.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 3 3. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THIS APPEAL ARE THAT CON SEQUENT TO A SEARCH DATED 30.10.2012 CONDUCTED ON M/S PRAKASH IN DUSTRIES LTD (PIL IN SHORT) UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE AC T WAS ISSUED ON THE APPELLANT ON 19.09.2014 ON THE GROUND THAT THE DOCUMENTS/MATERIAL BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON PIL. A SATISFACTION NOTE BE FORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS RECORDED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN THE CAPACITY OF THE AOSEARCHED PERSO N 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. THESE O BJECTIONS WERE ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE AO AND DISPOSED OFF. 4. THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE LD. AO IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153C DATED 31.03.2015: A. UNEXPLAINED CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT O F RS. 24,68,00,000/- BEING SHARE CAPITAL AND SECURITY PREM IUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. REFER PAGE NO. 44 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER B. UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN THE FORM OF BROKERAGE @ .5% I.E, 12,34,000/- 5. THE APPELLANT, BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEAL) TOOK THE JURISDICTIONAL GROUND CONTENDING INTER-ALI A THAT THE ASSESSMENT, SO FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF I.T.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 4 THE APPELLANT, IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, THE PROVISIONSOF SECTION 153C COME INTO PLAY ON HANDING OVER OF DOCUMENTS SEIZED AND BELONGING TO THE APPELLANTDURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON TO THE AO O F THE APPELLANT. ADMITTEDLY, THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE ON 30.10.2012 AND THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE APPELLANT WERE HANDED OVER TO ITS A O 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 ASSUMED TO BE THE DATE OF HANDING OVER THE MATERIAL . SATISFACTION NOTESARE APPENDED AT PAGE NO.24-25 OF THE APPELLANT S PAPER BOOK. 6. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, ONCE THE DOCUMENTS ARE HANDED OVER, SIX PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM THE DATE O F HANDING OVER OF THE DOCUMENTS, LAY OPEN FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER SECT ION 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. 7. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, SIX PRECEDING ASSESSMEN T 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. THE APP ELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT RELATED TO A .Y. 2008-09. THIS ASSESSMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REOPENED FOR AC TION UNDER SECTION 153C SINCE FIRST OF THE SIX PRECEDING ASSES SMENT YEARS WAS A.Y. 2009-10 AND NOT A.Y. 2008-09. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, A.Y. 2008-09 DOES NOT COME INTO THE PURV IEW OF THE SIX PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTIO N 153C OF THE ACT. I.T.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 5 8. THE APPELLANT FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS IN THIS RE GARD AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RRJ SECURITIES (380 ITR 612), ARN INFRASTRUCTURE IN DIA LTD. (81 TAXMANN.COM 260), RAJ BUILDWORTHPVT. LTD. (113 TAXMANN.COM 600), SARWAR AGENCY PVT. LTD. (85 TAXMA NN.COM 269) AND OTHER JUDGEMENTS SUCH AS R.L. ALLIED SERVIC ES (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.). 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED THE DE TAILED SUBMISSIONS ON THIS GROUND WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- SYNOPSIS BRIEF FACTS: 1. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY INCORPORATED ON 09.10.2007 AND WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT AND SALE PURCHASE OF SHARES DU RING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 OF THE ACT ON 01.09.2008 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2706/-. REFER PAGE NO. 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 2. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS REOPENED UNDER S ECTION 153C OF THE ACT BY ISSUING NOTICE ON 19.09.2014 CONSEQUENT TO T HE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRI ES GROUP OF COMPANIES ON 30.10.2012. COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED IS ATTACHED AT PAGE NO. 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY IN RESPONSE TO THE AFORESAI D NOTICE VIDE LETTER DATED 25.02.2015 REQUESTED THE LD. AO TO PROVIDE THE COPY O F SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY HIM AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SEARCHED PERSON AND ALSO REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF SEARCH AND THE MA TERIAL SEIZED AND RELIED I.T.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 6 UPON BY THE LD. AO FOR RECORDING THE SATISFACTION R EQUIRED U/S 153C OF THE ACT. (REFER PAGE NO. 14-15 OF THE PB) 4. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 27.02.2015 AGAIN REQU ESTED TO PROVIDE THE COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE AND SEIZED MATERIAL RELIE D UPON BY THE LD. AO FOR RECORDING THE SATISFACTION REQUIRED U/S 153C OF THE A CT AND STATED THAT THE RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT MAY BE TR EATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT (REFER PAGE NO. 16-17 OF PB) 5. THE LD. AO PROVIDED THE COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE RE CORDED BY HIM AND THE AO OF SEARCHED PERSON BUT NEVER PROVIDE THE COPY OF S EIZED MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED. (COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY THE AO OF SEARCHED PERSON IS ATTACHED A T PAGE NO. 24 AND COPY OF NOTE RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE IS AT PAGE NO. 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK) 6. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 04.03.2015 THE ASSESSE E HAD FILED DETAILED OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. REFER PAGE NO. 26-27 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 7. THEREAFTER THE LD. AO ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 14 2(1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASKED FOR THE VARIO US DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANTS AND THE EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THEIR IDENT ITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 8. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. AO THE A SSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE LD. AO FROM TIME TO TIME . 9. IN SPITE OF THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. AO, THE LD. AO HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSM ENT U/S 153C OF THE ACT ON 31.03.2015 WITHOUT PASSING THE SPEAKING ORDER DISPOSING OFF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THE LD. AO MADE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS TO THE RETURNED INCOME: A. UNEXPLAINED CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT OF RS . 24,68,00,000/- BEING SHARE CAPITAL AND SECURITY PREMIUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. REFER PAGE NO. 44 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER B. UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN THE FORM OF BROKERAGE @ .5% I.E, 12,34,000/- I.T.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 7 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. AO THE ASSESSEE HAD PREF ERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED. THE ASSESSEE PUT FORTH HIS ARGUMENTS AND FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UN DER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND ON MERITS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 30 (LD. CIT (A)). COPY OF SUBMISSIONS DATED 11.03.2017 AND 21.03.2017 FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IS ATTACHED AT PAGE NO.187-476 AND 477-487 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 11. THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER EXAMINING THE CASE IN DETAIL PA SSED THE ORDER ON 31.03.2017 IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE ON THE FOLLOWING GR OUNDS: I. THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE AC T IS VOID-AB-INITIO AS THE AO HAS NO JURISDICTION TO FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT F OR A.Y. 2008-09, 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 DEP ARTMENT 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 COND UCTED AT THE PREMISES OF M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. ON 30.10.2012. THE SEA RCHED PERSON IS M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. AND THE ASSESSEE IS OTHER PE RSON IN TERMS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. 2. THE DATE OF SEARCH IS 30.10.2012 AND THE DATE OF RECOR DING SATISFACTION BY THE LD. AO IS 19.09.2014. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC DA TE OF HANDING OVER OF MATERIAL IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, IT WAS ONLY ON 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014, 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 DATE OF RECEIPT OF T HE BOOKS AND ACCOUNTS BY THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED TO BE THE DATE OF SEA RCH. IN THE PRESENT CASE IN ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC DATE OF HANDING OVER OF M ATERIAL, THE DATE OF RECORDING SATISFACTION I.E, 19.09.2014 IS TO BE TRE ATED AS THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF MATERIAL AND THEREFORE THE SIX AYS PRECEDING THE YEAR OF THE SEARCH, I.T.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 8 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. 2008-09 IS T HEREFORE 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 AMEN DMENT BY FINANCE ACT, 2017 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. 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 RE FERENCE 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/DOCUM ENTS 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) OF THE ACT, WOULD HAVE TO BE IN ACC ORDANCE WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AND THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF SE ARCH 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 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 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 BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS AS RECKONED WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECO RDING 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 PREVIOUS YEAR I N WHICH THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. IF THIS INTERPRETATION AS CANVASSED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCEPTED, IT WOULD MEAN THAT WHEREAS IN CASE OF A P ERSON SEARCHED, I.T.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 9 ASSESSMENTS IN RELATION TO SIX PREVIOUS YEARS PRECE DING 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 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 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 153C (1) OF THE ACT, WHICH CONSTRUES THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF ASSETS AND DOCUMENT S BY THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE (OTHER THAN ONE SEARCHED) AS THE DATE OF THE SE ARCH ON THE ASSESSEE. THE RATIONALE APPEARS TO BE THAT WHEREAS IN THE CAS E OF A SEARCHED PERSON THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON ASSUMES POSSES SION 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 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 VIEW OF THE MATTER, ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2003-04 AND AY 2004-05 WE RE OUTSIDE 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 YEAR. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DEPARTMENT ALSO FILED WRITTE N 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 KIN DLY 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 SECTION 1 53, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWEL LERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR RE QUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED T O IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR R EQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDI CTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON 3A [AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINS T EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON I.T.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 10 AND ISSUE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A, IF, THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAVE A BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION O F THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YE ARS REFERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A] 4 [PROVIDED THAT IN CA SE OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH U NDER SECTION 132 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A IN THE SECOND PROVIS O TO 5 [SUB-SECTION (1) OF] SECTION 153A SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISI TIONED 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 DATED 29.03.2012 IN PARA NO. 13, 14 & AMP;AMP; 15 WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 13. SECTIONS 153A TO 153D ARE PLACED IN CHAPTER XI V OF THE ACT, WHICH IS TITLED "PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT". SECTI ON 153A PROVIDES FOR THE ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION. THIS S ECTION APPLIES TO A PERSON IN WHOSE CASE A SEARCH IS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ETC. ARE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A. THE PROCEDURE PRE SCRIBED UNDER SECTION 153A IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CALL UPON THE ASSESSEE WHO IS SEARCHED TO FURNISH RETURNS OF INCOME FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEA RS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WH ICH THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE. THE ASSESSEE, ON RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SHALL FURNISH THE RETURNS OF INC OME AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO ASSESS OR RE- ASS ESS 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 R EGULAR RETURNS, IF ANY, FILED BY THE SEARCHED ASSESSEE FOR ANY OF THE SIX ASSESSM ENT YEARS WHICH ARE PENDING ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE SEARCH WAS INITIAT E. THE ANSWER 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 I.T.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 11 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 IMME DIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WH ICH THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED, IN WHICH THE & AMP;QUOT;TOTALINCOME" OF TH E ASSESSEE WILL BE ASSESSED OR REASSESSED. IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THA T ONLY THE PENDING ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT O F ANY THOSE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS THAT WILL ABATE; IN CASE THE ASSES SMENT 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 FO R THE SIMPLE REASON THAT WHAT CAN ABATE IS ONLY WHAT REMAINS 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 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 D OCUMENT BELONGS TO THE OTHER PERSON (PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARCHED). HE SHA LL HAND OVER THE VALUABLE ARTICLE OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENT TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE OTHER PERSON. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE OTHER PERSON HAS TO PROCEED A GAINST HIM AND ISSUE NOTICE TO THAT PERSON IN ORDER TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCO ME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN THE MANNER CONTEMPLATED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 153A. NOW A QUESTION MAY ARISE AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SECOND PRO VISO TO SECTION 153A IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER PERSON, IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE Q UESTION OF PENDING PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE TO ABATE. IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE DATE WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSM ENT OR REASSESSMENT OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THE SIX ASSESS MENT YEARS SHALL ABATE, IS THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR THE REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A. FOR INSTANCE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, WI TH REFERENCE TO THE PURI GROUP OF COMPANIES, SUCH DATE WILL BE 5.1.2009. HOW EVER, IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER PERSON, WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THE PETI TIONER HEREIN, SUCH DATE WILL I.T.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 12 BE THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DO CUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITION BY THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER PERSON, THE QUESTION OF PENDENCY AND ABAT EMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT TO THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS WILL BE EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH DATE. IT NEEDS TO BE APPRECI ATED THAT THE SATISFACTION THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE REACHED BY THE AO HAVING JURISDIC TION OVER THE SEARCHED PERSON IS THAT THE VALUABLE ARTICLE OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS 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 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 WH ICH 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 SECTION 1 53C. 11. BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) , THE SAME CONTENTIONS WERE MADE AS MUCH AS IT WAS SOUGHT TO B E CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2008-09 COULD NOT BE M ADE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AS THE SAME WAS BARRED BY L IMITATION. 12. THE RATIO OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-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 D ELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT-7 VS. M/S RRJ SECURITIES LTD., [2016] 380 ITR 6 12 (DELHI), WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE DATE OF HANDING OVE R OF MATERIAL, WILL BE CONSTRUED AS THE REFERENCE DATE FOR INITIAT ION OF ACTION U/S I.T.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 13 153C OF THE ACT, AS AGAINST DATE OF INITIATION OF S EARCH, CONSTRUED THE REFERENCE DATE FOR INITIATION OF ACTION U/S 153 A OF THE ACT. FROM THE ABOVE, FOLLOWING FACTS EMERGED: THE SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY TIRE A.O. OF M/S PRAKASH 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 (1) OF THE ACT, THE REFERENCE DATE FOR TAKING ACTION U/S 153C, 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 153A OF THE ACT, AND 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. 2008-09, SINCE THE DO CUMENTS WERE HANDED, OVER ON 19.9.2014. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE IS SUED BY THE A.O., IS BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF 6 YEARS FR OM THE REFERENCE DATE, PRESCRIBED IN THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 15 3C(1) OF THE ACT AND 153A( 1) OF THE ACT. FROM THESE FACTS, IT IS CL EAR THAT THE ACTION INITIATED U/S. 1.53C OF THE ACT, FOR A.Y. 2008-09, 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 .2014. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 153C/ 153 A OF THE ACT, IS . VOID AB- INITIO, AS THE A.O. HAS NO JURISDICTION FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2008-09, BEING BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 6 YEAR S. ACCORDINGLY, 1 AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND ALS O THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE RATIO LAI D DOWN BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI, IN THE 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 ASSE SSMENT COMPLETED U/S 1.53C/153A, IS VOID AB INITIO, SINCE NOTICE U/S I.T.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 14 153C OF THE ACT, WAS ISSUED BEYOND LIMITATION PERIO D OF 6 YEARS FROM THE REFERENCE DATE OF 19.9.2014. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3, IS HEREBY ALLOWED. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND APPLI CABLE LAW, WE WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT. THE DETERMI NING 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 DOCUME NTS. HERE THE SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY THE A.O, OF M/S PRAKAS H INDUSTRIES LTD. IS 19.9.2014 AS WELL AS BY THE A.O. OF THE APPELLANT IS ON 19.9.2 014 WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN AS THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF DOCUMENTS AND DATE. SIX PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS BEGIN WITH A.Y. 2009-10 AND END WITH A.Y. 2014-15. IT WOULD BE THE DATE OF HAND ING OVER THE DOCUMENTS OR DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION WILL BE THE DATE FOR DETERMINING THE DATE FOR CALCULATING THE PRECEEDING SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IS WELL SETTLED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE DEL HI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RRJ SECURITIES (380 ITR 612) RELEVANT P ORTION 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/DOCUMENTS BEL ONGING TO THE ASSESSEE (BEING THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARCHED) TO T HE AO HAVING JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE SAID ASSESSEE. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, BY V IRTUE 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 CO NSTRUED AS THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION. IT WOULD FOL LOW THAT THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH ASSESSMENTS/REASSESSMENTS COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION I.T.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 15 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 A SSESSEE. 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, THE ASSESS MENTS 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 WOULD BE THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR I N WHICH THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. IF THIS INTERPRETATION AS CANVASSED BY T HE REVENUE IS ACCEPTED, IT WOULD MEAN THAT WHEREAS IN CASE OF A PERSON SEARCHE D, ASSESSMENTS IN RELATION TO SIX PREVIOUS YEARS PRECEDING THE YEAR I N WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE CAN BE REOPENED BUT IN CASE OF ANY OTHER PERS ON, 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 ASSE TS/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 SECTION 153C (1) 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 WHER EAS 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 SEI ZED 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 PERS ON. THUS, THE DATE ON WHICH THE AO OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARC HED ASSUMES THE POSSESSION OF THE SEIZED ASSETS WOULD BE THE RELEVA NT DATE FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFOR E, ACCEPT THE CONTENTION THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2003-0 4 AND AY 2004-05 WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND TH E AO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE & #39;S INCOME F OR THAT YEAR. I.T.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 16 14. THIS JUDGEMENT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF: A. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF ARN INFR ASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD. (81 TAXMANN.COM 260) HAS HELD THAT: HELD: THE DECISION IN RRJ SECURITIES LTD. (SUPRA) IS CATEGO RICAL THAT UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, THE PERIOD OF SIX YEARS AS REGARDS T HE 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 ISS UED ON 23RD JULY 2014. THE PREVIOUS SIX AYS WOULD THEREFORE BE FROM AY 2009- 10 TO AY 2014-15. 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 VALID, THERE 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 (SUPRA). THE FACT TH AT 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 DE CISION HAS NOT BEEN STAYED. B. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF RAJ BUIL DWORTHPVT. LTD. (113 TAXMANN.COM 600) HAS HELD THAT: DATED 23.10.2018 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCH PARTY AND THE RESPO NDENT ASSESSEE WAS THE SAME. IN SUCH A FACTUAL MATRIX, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INITIATED AND PASSED AN ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECT ION 153C OF 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 T HE SATISFACTION NOTE WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. C. HONBLE 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 COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, SOUGHT TO PURSUE THIS COURT TO RECONSIDER 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 REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE DECISIO N OF THIS COURT IN RRJ SECURITIES (SUPRA) IN THE SUPREME COURT. THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THIS COURT AS WELL AS BY THIS COURT. THIRDLY, THE RECENT AMENDMENT TO SECTIO N 153 C(1) OF THE ACT I.T.AS. NO.4058/DEL/2017 17 STATES FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT FOR BOTH THE SEARCHE D PERSON AND THE OTHER PERSON THE PERIOD OF REASSESSMENT WOULD BE SIX AYS PRECEDING THE YEAR OF SEARCH. THE SAID AMENDMENT IS PROSPECTIVE. 15. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE TO HOLD THAT NO ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153C COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2008-09. IT WAS CLEARLY BARRED BY LIMITATION. HENCE, THERE IS NO OPTION BUT TO ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT AND ALL CONSEQUE NT ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ALSO STAND DELETED. 16. AS A RESULT, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (APPEAL) UPH OLDING THE DECISION OF QUASHING OF ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2008-09 BEING BA RRED BY LIMITATION IS UPHELD. 17. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO GO INTO THE MERITS 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: