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

MA 307/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, which sought rectification of an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the issuance of notices under section 153C of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17. The Tribunal initially recorded an incorrect range of years in their order. Upon realization of the error, the Tribunal corrected the order to reflect the accurate years and acknowledged that the assessments for 2011-12 and 2012-13 were not valid as they exceeded the six-year limit for reassessment from the date of receipt of seized documents by the Assessing Officer of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123337 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2022
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. RRJ Securities, CIT v. Container Corporation of India and Ors
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MA No. 306/MUM/2022 (Arising out of CO No. 58/MUM/2022) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & MA No. 307/MUM/2022 (Arising out of CO No. 59/MUM/2022) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, 869, E Ward, Kasaba Vawada, Kolhapur, Maharashtra-416 006. Vs. Asst. CIT, CC-7(1), Room No. 676B, 6 th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAATD8919M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Mr. Dhaval Shah, AR Revenue by : Mr. Chetan Kacha, DR Date of Hearing : 25/11/2022 Date of pronouncement : 30/12/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of this Miscellaneous Applications, the assessee is seeking rectification in the order of the Tribunal dated 29.09.2022 in ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/Mum/2021 for assessment years & 2012-13 respectively, wherein t Tribunal by way of cro respectively. 2. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that in para 3 of the impugned order, it has been stated that the Ld. Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 153C of the Act in respect of assessment year 2011 Counsel pointed out that only notice for assessment year 2011 to assessment year 2015 no notice u/s 153C was issued for assessment year 2016 3. We have heard r mistakes pointed out by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee is found to be correct. In view of the order of the Tribunal is accordingly amended. The para 3 of the order should now be “3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a trust was engaged in running various educational Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society in ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/Mum/2021 for assessment years 13 respectively, wherein the assessee was before the Tribunal by way of cross-objection Nos. 58 & 59/Mum/2022 Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that in para 3 of the impugned order, it has been stated that the Ld. Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 153C of the Act in respect year 2011-12 to assessment year 2016 Counsel pointed out that only notice for assessment year 2011 to assessment year 2015-16 were issued u/s 153C of the Act and no notice u/s 153C was issued for assessment year 2016 We have heard rival submission of the parties and those mistakes pointed out by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee is found to be correct. In view of the above, the relevant para of the order of the Tribunal is accordingly amended. The para 3 of the read as under: Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a trust was engaged in running various educational Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society MA Nos. 306 & 307/M/2022 2 in ITA Nos. 2293 & 2294/Mum/2021 for assessment years 2011-12 he assessee was before the objection Nos. 58 & 59/Mum/2022 Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that in para 3 of the impugned order, it has been stated that the Ld. Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 153C of the Act in respect 12 to assessment year 2016-17. The Ld. Counsel pointed out that only notice for assessment year 2011-12 16 were issued u/s 153C of the Act and no notice u/s 153C was issued for assessment year 2016-17. of the parties and those mistakes pointed out by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and same , the relevant para of the order of the Tribunal is accordingly amended. The para 3 of the Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a trust was engaged in running various educational institutions including medical college and engineering college etc. A search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at organizations related to the assessee. In consequence to the information pertaining to the assessee found during the course of search, the cases of the assessee were reopened invoking section 153C was concluded on 29.07.2016 and therefore, assessment in the case of searched person were reopened for the period from assessment year 2011 to the assessee was passed on to the Assessing Officer of the assessee and relevant seized document was handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee on 18.09.2018. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153C of the Act in assessment year 2011 before us are pertaining to the assessment year 2011 2012-13. The assessments were completed u/s 153C of the Act on 27.12.2018 for both the assessment years under consideration. assessment/reassessment u/s 153C of the Act, however, allowed relief on merit. Aggrieved, the Revenue and assessee are before us by way of respective grounds, appeal/cross Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society institutions including medical college and engineering college etc. A search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at organizations related to the assessee. In consequence to the information pertaining to the assessee found during the course of search, the cases of the assessee were reopened invoking section 153C of the Act. The search in the case of other entities was concluded on 29.07.2016 and therefore, assessment in the case of searched person were reopened for the period from assessment year 2011-12 to 2015-16. The information related to the assessee was passed on to the Assessing Officer of the assessee and relevant seized document was handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee on 18.09.2018. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153C of the Act in assessment year 2011-12 to 2016-17. The present two appeals before us are pertaining to the assessment year 2011 13. The assessments were completed u/s 153C of the Act on 27.12.2018 for both the assessment years under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A), though uphold the validity of assessment/reassessment u/s 153C of the Act, however, allowed relief on merit. Aggrieved, the Revenue and assessee are before us by way of respective grounds, appeal/cross-objection.” Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society MA Nos. 306 & 307/M/2022 3 institutions including medical college and engineering college etc. A search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at organizations related to the assessee. In consequence to the information pertaining to the assessee found during the course of search, the cases of the assessee were reopened invoking of the Act. The search in the case of other entities was concluded on 29.07.2016 and therefore, assessment in the case of searched person were reopened for the period from . The information related to the assessee was passed on to the Assessing Officer of the assessee and relevant seized document was handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee on 18.09.2018. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153C of the Act in respect of 17. The present two appeals before us are pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12 and 13. The assessments were completed u/s 153C of the Act on 27.12.2018 for both the assessment years under The Ld. CIT(A), though uphold the validity of assessment/reassessment u/s 153C of the Act, however, allowed relief on merit. Aggrieved, the Revenue and assessee are before us by way of respective grounds, in their 3.1 Secondly, the Ld. Counsel submitted that in para 5 and 6 of the order, the Tribunal has referred to additional ground filed by the assessee and admitted the same for adjudication. The Ld. Counsel submitted that additional ground in appeal for assessment year 2016 appeal which was fixed for hearing Counsel further submitted that the issue above additional ground cross-objection No. 1 and 2 and therefore, Tribunal has mistake in referring to additional ground rather than ground No. 1 and 2 of the cross-objection. He submitted that para 5 and 6 of the appeal need to be amended accordingly and further reference of additional ground in para 8 and 8.2 of the impugned order need to be replaced by ground No. 1 and 2 of the cross objection. 4. We have heard rival submissions of the parties the perused the relevant material on record. The mistakes pointed out by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee are rectified. Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society he Ld. Counsel submitted that in para 5 and 6 of the order, the Tribunal has referred to additional ground filed by the assessee and admitted the same for adjudication. The Ld. Counsel submitted that additional ground was filed by the assessee assessment year 2016-17 i.e. pertains to another fixed for hearing on the same date. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the issue which is mentioned above additional ground, was actually raised by the assessee in o. 1 and 2 and therefore, Tribunal has mistake in referring to additional ground rather than ground No. 1 objection. He submitted that para 5 and 6 of the appeal need to be amended accordingly and further reference of l ground in para 8 and 8.2 of the impugned order need to ground No. 1 and 2 of the cross objection. We have heard rival submissions of the parties the perused the relevant material on record. The mistakes pointed out by the Ld. f the assessee are found to be correct and accordingly Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society MA Nos. 306 & 307/M/2022 4 he Ld. Counsel submitted that in para 5 and 6 of the order, the Tribunal has referred to additional ground filed by the assessee and admitted the same for adjudication. The Ld. filed by the assessee pertains to another on the same date. The Ld. which is mentioned in raised by the assessee in o. 1 and 2 and therefore, Tribunal has committed mistake in referring to additional ground rather than ground No. 1 objection. He submitted that para 5 and 6 of the appeal need to be amended accordingly and further reference of l ground in para 8 and 8.2 of the impugned order need to ground No. 1 and 2 of the cross objection. We have heard rival submissions of the parties the perused the relevant material on record. The mistakes pointed out by the Ld. found to be correct and accordingly 5. Thirdly, the Ld. Counsel has pointed out that the Tribunal in the impugned order as in para 8.4 has mentioned that facts and circumstances in assessment year 2012 whereas the reference is to assessment year 2011 pointed out by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee is apparent from record and rectified. 6. The relevant para of the impugned order should be read as under: “6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the as provisions of section 153C of the Act, the six years which could have been reopened are six years prior to the year in which books of account or seized documents are handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee by the Assessing Officer of the searched person. It was submitted that since the seized material was handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee on 18.09.2018 and therefore, the relevant six assessment year u/s 153C could have been assessment year 2013 after detailed finding rejected the contention of the assessee observing as under : Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society Thirdly, the Ld. Counsel has pointed out that the Tribunal in the impugned order as in para 8.4 has mentioned that facts and circumstances in assessment year 2012-13 is identical to 2010 whereas the reference is to assessment year 2011-12. The mistake pointed out by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee is apparent from The relevant para of the impugned order should be read as Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that under the provisions of section 153C of the Act, the six years which could have been reopened are six years prior to the year in which books of account or seized documents are handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee e Assessing Officer of the searched person. It was submitted that since the seized material was handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee on 18.09.2018 and therefore, the relevant six assessment year u/s 153C could have been assessment year 2013-14 to 2018 after detailed finding rejected the contention of the assessee observing as Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society MA Nos. 306 & 307/M/2022 5 Thirdly, the Ld. Counsel has pointed out that the Tribunal in the impugned order as in para 8.4 has mentioned that facts and 13 is identical to 2010-11 12. The mistake pointed out by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee is apparent from The relevant para of the impugned order should be read as sessee contended that under the provisions of section 153C of the Act, the six years which could have been reopened are six years prior to the year in which books of account or seized documents are handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee e Assessing Officer of the searched person. It was submitted that since the seized material was handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee on 18.09.2018 and therefore, the relevant six assessment year u/s 14 to 2018-19. The Ld. CIT(A) after detailed finding rejected the contention of the assessee observing as “7.2.1 I have already considered this aspect while adjudicating a similar ground raised by the assessee in AY 2017 assessment order passed us 143(3) of the Act, where the plea of the assessee was that the said order for AY 2017 passed us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) as the six assessment years in this case, if considered from the date of receipt of seized material would 2013-14 to 2018 After considering the submissions of the assessee and the relevant judicial pronouncements on this issue, I have already held that the six assessment years for which the notices us 153C were required to be issued in this case are AY 2016-17. The aforesaid findings as appearing in the appeal order dated 28.09.2021 in the case of the appellant for AY 2017 reproduced as below for ready reference and for the sake of completeness: "7.2.1. I have considered the submissio provisions of the Act and judicial decisions relied upon by the appellant and other judicial pronouncements as applicable to the issue at hand. On perusal of the impugned assessment order, it is evident that the learned AO in the c with issuing notices for the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted in the aforesaid cases of the searched persons as the date of search n order is 27.07.2016, which was concluded on 29.07.2016. 7.2.2. However, the contention raised by the assessee before me vide the aforesaid ground is that the Id. AO should have issued notice us Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society 7.2.1 I have already considered this aspect while adjudicating a similar ground raised by the assessee in AY 2017-18, as against order passed us 143(3) of the Act, where the plea of the assessee was that the said order for AY 2017-18 should have been passed us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) as the six assessment years in this case, if considered from the date of receipt of seized material would 14 to 2018-19. After considering the submissions of the assessee and the relevant judicial pronouncements on this issue, I have already held that the six assessment years for which the notices us 153C were required to be issued in this case are AYs 2011-12 to 17. The aforesaid findings as appearing in the appeal order dated 28.09.2021 in the case of the appellant for AY 2017 reproduced as below for ready reference and for the sake of "7.2.1. I have considered the submissions of the appellant, the provisions of the Act and judicial decisions relied upon by the appellant and other judicial pronouncements as applicable to the issue at hand. On perusal of the impugned assessment order, it is evident that the learned AO in the case of assessee has proceeded with issuing notices for the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted in the aforesaid cases of the searched persons as the date of search noted in the assessment order is 27.07.2016, which was concluded on 29.07.2016. 7.2.2. However, the contention raised by the assessee before me vide the aforesaid ground is that the Id. AO should have issued notice us Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society MA Nos. 306 & 307/M/2022 6 7.2.1 I have already considered this aspect while adjudicating a 18, as against order passed us 143(3) of the Act, where the plea of the 18 should have been passed us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) as the six assessment years in this case, if considered from the date of receipt of seized material would be After considering the submissions of the assessee and the relevant judicial pronouncements on this issue, I have already held that the six assessment years for which the notices us 153C were required to 17. The aforesaid findings as appearing in the appeal order dated 28.09.2021 in the case of the appellant for AY 2017-18 are reproduced as below for ready reference and for the sake of ns of the appellant, the provisions of the Act and judicial decisions relied upon by the appellant and other judicial pronouncements as applicable to the issue at hand. On perusal of the impugned assessment order, it is ase of assessee has proceeded with issuing notices for the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted in the aforesaid cases of the oted in the assessment 7.2.2. However, the contention raised by the assessee before me vide the aforesaid ground is that the Id. AO should have issued notice us 153C for AY 2017 computation of six previous assessment years would be the date on which the seized document was handed over to the Id. AO which is 18.09.2018 in this case. The contention of the assessee in this regard is that as per the provisions of Se the Assessing Officer can initiate assessment proceedings for six proceeding years prior to the date of search by issue of notice Us 153C of the Act and in terms of the first proviso to Section the Act, for the reference to the date of search in Section 153A of the Act shall be the date on which the Assessing Officer of the other person has received the books of account or documents or assets seized etc from the Assessing Officer of the person searched. on the judicial decisions referred to in the submissions of the assessee, as reproduced previously, it was claimed that the date of receiving of books of account or documents in the case of Assessing Officer of the assessee concerned would be the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the person searched and the date on which such books of accounts or documents were handed over to the Assessing Officer of the third person. As the books of acco other documents were noted to have been received on 18.09.2018, and the AO had noted his satisfaction on the same date as AO of the assessee and issued notices us 153C on 19.09.2018, the assessment years for which the notice us. 153C of the Act sho issued are A.Y. 2013 that the Id. AO should have issued notice issued us 153C of the Act for the year under reference which is AY 2017 assessment completed us 143(3) of th jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society 153C for AY 2017-18 as well since, the date of search for computation of six previous assessment years would be the date on which the seized document was handed over to the Id. AO which is 18.09.2018 in this case. The contention of the assessee in this regard is that as per the provisions of Section 153C(1) r.w.s.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer can initiate assessment proceedings for six proceeding years prior to the date of search by issue of notice Us 153C of the Act and in terms of the first proviso to Section the Act, for the purpose of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act, the reference to the date of search in Section 153A of the Act shall be the date on which the Assessing Officer of the other person has received the books of account or documents or assets seized etc sessing Officer of the person searched. Placing reliance on the judicial decisions referred to in the submissions of the assessee, as reproduced previously, it was claimed that the date of receiving of books of account or documents in the case of Assessing Officer of the assessee concerned would be the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the person searched and the date on which such books of accounts or documents were handed over to the Assessing Officer of the third person. As the books of acco other documents were noted to have been received on 18.09.2018, and the AO had noted his satisfaction on the same date as AO of the assessee and issued notices us 153C on 19.09.2018, the assessment years for which the notice us. 153C of the Act should have been issued are A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2018-19. It was, therefore, contended that the Id. AO should have issued notice issued us 153C of the Act for the year under reference which is AY 2017-18 and therefore, the assessment completed us 143(3) of the Act is without any jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed.” Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society MA Nos. 306 & 307/M/2022 7 date of search for computation of six previous assessment years would be the date on which the seized document was handed over to the Id. AO which is 18.09.2018 in this case. The contention of the assessee in this regard ction 153C(1) r.w.s.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer can initiate assessment proceedings for six proceeding years prior to the date of search by issue of notice Us 153C of the Act and in terms of the first proviso to Section 153C of purpose of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act, the reference to the date of search in Section 153A of the Act shall be the date on which the Assessing Officer of the other person has received the books of account or documents or assets seized etc Placing reliance on the judicial decisions referred to in the submissions of the assessee, as reproduced previously, it was claimed that the date of receiving of books of account or documents in the case of Assessing Officer of the assessee concerned would be the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the person searched and the date on which such books of accounts or documents were handed over to the Assessing Officer of the third person. As the books of account and other documents were noted to have been received on 18.09.2018, and the AO had noted his satisfaction on the same date as AO of the assessee and issued notices us 153C on 19.09.2018, the assessment uld have been 19. It was, therefore, contended that the Id. AO should have issued notice issued us 153C of the Act 18 and therefore, the e Act is without any 7. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The only limited issue in ground No. assessment year for reassessment u/s 153C of the Act are to be reckoned as six years prior to the year in which search has taken place or six years prior to the year in which seized material is received by the Assessing Officer of the other person. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. RRJ Securities 380 ITR 612 has held that for the purpose of section 153C of the Act, six years has to be reckoned as six years prior to the date of receipt of seized material by the Ass person. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court are reproduced as under: “24. As discussed hereinbefore, in terms of proviso to the Act, a reference to to Section 153A over of assets/documents belonging to the Assessee (being the person other than the on the said Assessee. Further proceedings, by virtue of the Act, would have to be in accordance with and the reference to the date of search would have to be construed as the reference to the date of recording of satisfaction. It would follow that the six assessment years for which assessments/reassessments Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The only limited ground No.1 & 2 of cross objection of the assess assessment year for reassessment u/s 153C of the Act are to be reckoned as six years prior to the year in which search has taken place or six years prior to the year in which seized material is received by the Assessing er person. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. RRJ Securities 380 ITR 612 has held that for the purpose of section 153C of the Act, six years has to be reckoned as six years prior to the date of receipt of seized material by the Assessing Officer of the other person. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court are reproduced as 24. As discussed hereinbefore, in terms of proviso to Section 153C the Act, a reference to the date of the search under the second proviso Section 153A of the Act has to be construed as the date of handing over of assets/documents belonging to the Assessee (being the person other than the one searched) to the AO having jurisdiction to assess the said Assessee. Further proceedings, by virtue of Section 153C(1) the Act, would have to be in accordance with Section 153A and the reference to the date of search would have to be construed as the reference to the date of recording of satisfaction. It would follow that the six assessment years for which assessments/reassessments Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society MA Nos. 306 & 307/M/2022 8 We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue-in- dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The only limited of the assessee is whether the assessment year for reassessment u/s 153C of the Act are to be reckoned as six years prior to the year in which search has taken place or six years prior to the year in which seized material is received by the Assessing er person. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. RRJ Securities 380 ITR 612 has held that for the purpose of section 153C of the Act, six years has to be reckoned as six years prior to essing Officer of the other person. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court are reproduced as Section 153C of the date of the search under the second proviso of the Act has to be construed as the date of handing over of assets/documents belonging to the Assessee (being the person e searched) to the AO having jurisdiction to assess Section 153C(1) of Section 153A of the Act and the reference to the date of search would have to be construed as 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 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 rec Act, i.e., 8th September, 2010. In this view, the assessments made in respect of assessment year 2003 the period of six date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person. It is contended by the Revenue that the relevant six assessment years would be the assessment years prior to the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. If this interpretation as canvassed by the Revenue is accepted, it would mean that whereas in case of a person searched, assessments in relation to six previous years preceding the year in which the sear takes place can be reopened but in case of any other person, who is not searched but his assets are seized from the searched person, the period for which the assessments could be reopened would be much beyond the period of six years. This is so because over of assets/documents of a person, other than the searched person, to the AO would be subsequent to the date of the search. This, in our view, would be contrary to the scheme of the Act, which construes the date of receipt of assets and documents by the AO of the Assessee (other than one searched) as the date of the search on the Assessee. The rationale appears to be that whereas in the case of a searched person th possession of seized assets/documents on search of the Assessee; the seized assets/documents belonging to a person other person come into possession of the AO of that person only after the AO of the searc Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society e made under Section 153C of the Act would also have to be construed with reference to the date of handing over of assets/documents to the AO of the Assessee. In this case, it would be the date of the recording of satisfaction under Section 153C Act, i.e., 8th September, 2010. In this view, the assessments made in respect of assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05 would be beyond the period of six assessment years as reckoned with reference to the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person. It is contended by the Revenue that the relevant six assessment years would be the assessment years prior to the assessment year relevant the previous year in which the search was conducted. If this interpretation as canvassed by the Revenue is accepted, it would mean that whereas in case of a person searched, assessments in relation to six previous years preceding the year in which the sear takes place can be reopened but in case of any other person, who is not searched but his assets are seized from the searched person, the period for which the assessments could be reopened would be much beyond the period of six years. This is so because the date of handing over of assets/documents of a person, other than the searched 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) the Act, which construes the date of receipt of assets and documents by the AO of the Assessee (other than one searched) as the date of the search on the Assessee. The rationale appears to be that whereas in the case of a searched person the AO of the searched person assumes possession of seized assets/documents on search of the 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/documents do Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society MA Nos. 306 & 307/M/2022 9 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 Section 153C of the Act, i.e., 8th September, 2010. In this view, the assessments made in 05 would be beyond ssment years as reckoned 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 assessment years prior to the assessment year relevant the previous year in which the search was conducted. If this interpretation as canvassed by the Revenue is accepted, it would mean that whereas in case of a person searched, assessments in relation to six previous years preceding the year in which the search takes place can be reopened but in case of any other person, who is not searched but his assets are seized from the searched person, the period for which the assessments could be reopened would be much 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, tion 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 whereas in e AO of the searched person assumes possession of seized assets/documents on search of the Assessee; the than a searched person come into possession of the AO of that person only after the hed person is satisfied that the assets/documents do not belong to the searched person. Thus, the date on which the AO of the person other than the one searched assumes the possession of the seized assets would be the relevant date for applying the provisi of Section 153A in any view of the matter, assessment for AY 2003 were outside the scope of jurisdiction to make an assessment of the Assessee's income for that year.” 7.1 Before us, no contrary decision has been brought on record by the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). The Ld. Counse that said decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been further confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Corporation of India and Ors [Civil Appeal No. 8900/2012 dated 24.08.2018. 7.2 The issue-in- before us is identical to the issue which has been decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra), therefore, respectfully following the finding of the we hold that in the case of the assessee six years for assessment u/s 153C has to be reckoned are assessment year 2013 19. Therefore, the assessment proceedings in these two years completed Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society 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 provisi Section 153A of the Act. We, therefore, accept the contention that in any view of the matter, assessment for AY 2003-04 and AY 2004 were outside the scope of Section 153C of the Act and the AO had no jurisdiction to make an assessment of the Assessee's income for that Before us, no contrary decision has been brought on record by the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). The Ld. Counse that said decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been further confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Corporation of India and Ors [Civil Appeal No. 8900/2012 dated -dispute involved in ground No. 1 & 2 of cross objection before us is identical to the issue which has been decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra), therefore, respectfully following the finding of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (supra), we hold that in the case of the assessee six years for assessment u/s 153C has to be reckoned are assessment year 2013-14 to assessment year 2018 19. Therefore, the assessment proceedings in these two years completed Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society MA Nos. 306 & 307/M/2022 10 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 the Act. We, therefore, accept the contention that 04 and AY 2004-05 of the Act and the AO had no jurisdiction to make an assessment of the Assessee's income for that Before us, no contrary decision has been brought on record by the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). The Ld. Counsel also submitted that said decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been further confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Container Corporation of India and Ors [Civil Appeal No. 8900/2012 dated ground No. 1 & 2 of cross objection before us is identical to the issue which has been decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra), therefore, Hon’ble Delhi High Court (supra), we hold that in the case of the assessee six years for assessment u/s 153C 14 to assessment year 2018- 19. Therefore, the assessment proceedings in these two years completed u/s 153C of the Act are not accordance with law and accordingly we quash the assessment proceedings for AY 2011 7.3 Since, we have already quashed the assessment proceedings in the appeal before us in AY 2011 in the appeal of the Revenue are rendered only academic and we are not adjudicating upon and same are dismissed as infructuous. 7.4 The facts and circumstances in the AY 2012 2011-12, the cross objection of the assessee the Revenue is dismissed. 7. Both the Miscellaneous Applications of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 on 30/12/2022. Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/12/2022 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society 153C of the Act are not accordance with law and accordingly we quash the assessment proceedings for AY 2011-12 & 2012 Since, we have already quashed the assessment proceedings in the appeal before us in AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, therefore, the issue in the appeal of the Revenue are rendered only academic and we are not adjudicating upon and same are dismissed as infructuous. The facts and circumstances in the AY 2012-13 being identical to AY , the cross objection of the assessee is allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” Both the Miscellaneous Applications of the assessee are Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 2022. sd/ AMIT SHUKLA) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society MA Nos. 306 & 307/M/2022 11 153C of the Act are not accordance with law and accordingly we 12 & 2012-13. Since, we have already quashed the assessment proceedings in the 13, therefore, the issues raised in the appeal of the Revenue are rendered only academic and we are not adjudicating upon and same are dismissed as infructuous. 13 being identical to AY is allowed whereas appeal of Both the Miscellaneous Applications of the assessee are Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society MA Nos. 306 & 307/M/2022 12 BY ORDER, Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai