MUKUL RANI THAKUR,DEHRADUN V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 1483/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mukul Rani Thakur, the appellant, who contested an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2021-22, which was based on materials found during a search operation on a third party, Praveen Kumar Jain. The Income Tax Department had conducted a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequently, an assessment was made under section 143(3) without the necessary approval under section 153D. The Tribunal examined whether the assessment should have been made under section 153C, which deals with the assessment of income of a person other than the searched person, based on the incriminating material found during the search.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474667 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Pr.CIT & Anrs vs Ojjus Medicare P.Ltd. & Ors, National Thermal Power Co.Ltd. vs CIT, Jute Corporate of India Ltd. vs CIT, M.D. Overseas P Ltd vs Dy CIT, Santosh Hospital P Ltd vs DCIT, CIT vs Jasjit Singh, CIT vs RRJ Securities Ltd, CIT vs T. Rangroopchand Chordia, Dr. K.M. Mehaboob vs DCIT, Ashokji Chanduji Thakor vs PCIT, Shri Om Prakash Jalkhotia vs ACIT, Mikado Realtors P. Ltd. vs DCIT, Sanjay Thakhur vs DCIT, DCIT vs Vinod Kumar
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT SHUKLA
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized; Capital Gains; Search and seizure; Block assessment; Opportunity of cross examination
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 119; 250; 132; 153A; 13; 153C; 54EC

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No [Assessment Year : Mukul Rani Thakur, H.no.8, Cross Tapovan Enclave, Amwala Tarala, Dehradun PAN-AERPT3941E APPELLANT Appellant by Respondent by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA The instant appeal has been filed at the instance of to assail the First Appellate order dated Commissioner of Income Tax (A) Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 30.12.2022 passed u/s 143 22. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the 1. “The Ld.CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order ignoring the fact that no approval u/s 153D was obtained before passing of the above order. 2. The impugned order of assessment u/s 143(3) of IT Act is not valid in law as the same has been passed in complete defiance of the provision of sec 153C of IT Act as the assessment passed taking adverse view of the material found in the course off IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1483/Del/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22] Mukul Rani Thakur, H.no.8, Cross 10, B- Enclave, Amwala Tarala, Dehradun-248008. AERPT3941E vs DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi. RESPONDENT Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Respondent by Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 20.11.2024 ORDER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : The instant appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee seeking to assail the First Appellate order dated 08.02.2024 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 43(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Y The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: Ld.CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order ignoring the fact that no approval u/s 153D was obtained before passing of the above order. The impugned order of assessment u/s 143(3) of IT Act is not valid e same has been passed in complete defiance of the provision of sec 153C of IT Act as the assessment order passed taking adverse view of the material found in the course off SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR assessee seeking passed by Ld. A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated Assessment Year 2021- read as under:- Ld.CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order ignoring the fact that no approval u/s 153D The impugned order of assessment u/s 143(3) of IT Act is not valid e same has been passed in complete defiance of the order has been passed taking adverse view of the material found in the course off search on the third person and the assessment year under consideration wa sec 153C(1) of IT Act and the assessment was not an abated assessment. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.97,37,300/ under the head long term capital gain on the basis of the di evidences found from the digital devices of other individuals without appreciating the fact that same were not found corroborated from the facts on record backed by a valid certificate of authentication requi Indian Evidence Act. 4. The assessment same has been passed taking cognizance of the so called incriminating material found from a third person without the third person and also the counter p flat, examined by the Ld.AO with reference to the material adversely relied upon and without providing opportunity of cross examination of the said witness to the appellant assessee to link the appellant to so called incriminating material. 5. The impugned assessment is invalid and without jurisdiction as the said assessment is completed without complying with the mandatory CBDT instructions/guidelines.” 3. The assessee is a senior citizen and her return of income for Assessment Year 2021 total income of INR 6,98,900/ equity shares and income dividend from Indian companies. During the year under assessee sold house property situated at Preet Vihar, Delhi for INR 49,00,000/ and invested the sale proceeds in purchase of capital gain bonds u/s 54EC of the Act of the same amount and thus, declared ITA No. search on the third person and the assessment year under consideration was not the year of search in view of the provision to sec 153C(1) of IT Act and the assessment was not an abated The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.97,37,300/ under the head long term capital gain on the basis of the di evidences found from the digital devices of other individuals without appreciating the fact that same were not found corroborated from record and the digital evidences shared were not backed by a valid certificate of authentication required u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The assessment order under appeal is unsustainable in law as the same has been passed taking cognizance of the so called incriminating material found from a third person without the third person and also the counter party i.e. buyer in the deal of sale of flat, examined by the Ld.AO with reference to the material adversely relied upon and without providing opportunity of cross examination of the said witness to the appellant assessee to link the appellant to incriminating material. The impugned assessment is invalid and without jurisdiction as the said assessment is completed without complying with the mandatory CBDT instructions/guidelines.” The assessee is a senior citizen and 66 years old lady. The her return of income for Assessment Year 2021-22 on 02.11.2021 total income of INR 6,98,900/-. The assessee declared income from sale of equity shares and income from other source in the form of interest and companies. During the year under consideration assessee sold house property situated at Preet Vihar, Delhi for INR 49,00,000/ and invested the sale proceeds in purchase of capital gain bonds u/s 54EC of the Act of the same amount and thus, declared capital gains from property at ITA No.1483/Del/2024 Page | 2 search on the third person and the assessment year under s not the year of search in view of the provision to sec 153C(1) of IT Act and the assessment was not an abated The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.97,37,300/- under the head long term capital gain on the basis of the digital evidences found from the digital devices of other individuals without appreciating the fact that same were not found corroborated from and the digital evidences shared were not red u/s 65B of appeal is unsustainable in law as the same has been passed taking cognizance of the so called incriminating material found from a third person without the third arty i.e. buyer in the deal of sale of flat, examined by the Ld.AO with reference to the material adversely relied upon and without providing opportunity of cross examination of the said witness to the appellant assessee to link the appellant to The impugned assessment is invalid and without jurisdiction as the said assessment is completed without complying with the . The assessee filed 02.11.2021, declaring income from sale of from other source in the form of interest and consideration, the assessee sold house property situated at Preet Vihar, Delhi for INR 49,00,000/- and invested the sale proceeds in purchase of capital gain bonds u/s 54EC of capital gains from property at NIL. The case of the assesse of the Act. In the course 15.11.2022, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) referred to search conducted at premises of one Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, a third party and also referred to a kachchi parchi image which is stated to be found from the mobile phone of Shri Vaibhav Jain which is alleged Delhi. The assessee filed reply and denied any privy to such found on the mobile phone of such party. The AO however, relied upon whatsapp chat and held that the assessee has under consideration on sale of Long Term to the tune of INR 1,05,50,000/ Gain (“LTCG”) and made addition of INR 97,37,300/ consideration based on kachchi parchi at INR 1,04,36,200/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. As per para 13 of the assessment order, it was asserted by the AO that the assessment prior approval of the Ld. accorded vide F.No.Addl.CIT.CR 4. Aggrieved by the additions, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) without any avail. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset, adverted to Ground No.2 of the grounds of appeal and pointed out that this Ground is essentially in the nature of additional ground. An application for the same as additional ground aforesaid ground seeks to challenge the jurisdiction of the AO assumed u/s 143(2) of the Act in the light of decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT & Anrs vs Ojjus Medicare P.Ltd. & Ors. No.52/2024 dated 03.04.2024. that the ground raised is legal ground for record and thus, urged ITA No. NIL. The case of the assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3 course of assessment, in a show cause 15.11.2022, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) referred to search conducted at premises of one Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, a third party and also referred to a image which is stated to be found from the mobile phone of ri Vaibhav Jain which is allegedly pertain to sale of property at Pr Delhi. The assessee filed reply and denied any privy to such ka found on the mobile phone of such party. The AO however, relied upon whatsapp chat and held that the assessee has under reported sale of Long Term asset being property at Preet V to the tune of INR 1,05,50,000/-. The AO re-computed the Long and made addition of INR 97,37,300/- at estimated sale consideration based on kachchi parchi. The income was accordingly u/s 143(3) of the Act. As per para 13 of the assessment it was asserted by the AO that the assessment order was passed with the prior approval of the Ld. Additional CIT, Central Range-8, New Delhi as Addl.CIT.CR-8/Approval/2022-23/1887 dated 30.12.2022. by the additions, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) without any avail. the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. for the assessee at the outset, adverted to Ground No.2 of the grounds of appeal and pointed out that this Ground is essentially in the nature of additional ground. An application for admission of ground, treating ground was referred. It was submitted that the aforesaid ground seeks to challenge the jurisdiction of the AO assumed u/s 143(2) of the Act in the light of decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Pr.CIT & Anrs vs Ojjus Medicare P.Ltd. & Ors. 03.04.2024. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out at the ground raised is legal ground for which, relevant facts are available on urged for admission thereof in the light of ITA No.1483/Del/2024 Page | 3 to scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) show cause notice dated 15.11.2022, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) referred to search conducted at the premises of one Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, a third party and also referred to a image which is stated to be found from the mobile phone of ertain to sale of property at Preet Vihar, kachchi parchi found on the mobile phone of such party. The AO however, relied upon some reported sale Preet Vihar, Delhi ong Term Capital at estimated sale . The income was accordingly, assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act. As per para 13 of the assessment order was passed with the 8, New Delhi as 23/1887 dated 30.12.2022. by the additions, the assessee preferred appeal before the the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. for the assessee at the outset, adverted to Ground No.2 of the grounds of appeal and pointed out that this Ground is essentially in the ground, treating ed. It was submitted that the aforesaid ground seeks to challenge the jurisdiction of the AO assumed u/s 143(2) of the Act in the light of decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Pr.CIT & Anrs vs Ojjus Medicare P.Ltd. & Ors. in ITA for the assessee pointed out ch, relevant facts are available on in the light of judgements rendered in the case of National Thermal Power Co.Ltd. vs CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporate of India Ltd. vs CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC). 7. The issue raised as per aspects and thus, goes to the root of the matter. The relevant to be emanating from records and do facts. Hence, additional grounds are admitted for adjudication 8. The assessee essentially [i] “non-compliance of section 153C o rendering the assessment order in question to be void, ab challenged to the additions on aspects of merits [ii] Assessment order passed without approval u/s 153D of the Act and rendering the as 9. With reference to the additional ground, challenging the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, Ld. submitted that:- [i] “that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 was carried out at premises of Sh Praveen K Jain on 06.01.2021 during which certain WhatsApp chat pertaining to the appellant were found. The Assessing Officer of the above searched person sent intimation about the whatasap chat to the AO on 28.06.2022. On that basis, the AO was inclined to reopen the assessment for six AY's including AY 2021-22 under section 153C of the Act AO took the view that since the year under consideration is search year, he proceeded with the assessment u/s 143(3) of the [ii] that it is a settled law that when provisions of proviso to section 153C are applied, then date of search is substituted by date of handing over of the documents by the Assessing Officer of the person searched to the Assessing Officer of the othe ITA No. ational Thermal Power Co.Ltd. vs CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) Jute Corporate of India Ltd. vs CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC). as per additional ground touches the jurisdictional aspects and thus, goes to the root of the matter. The relevant facts are emanating from records and do not call for examination of facts. Hence, additional grounds are admitted for adjudication purposes. essentially raised following grounds: compliance of section 153C of the Act as per additional ground rendering the assessment order in question to be void, ab challenged to the additions on aspects of merits; and Assessment order passed without approval u/s 153D of the Act and rendering the assessment order to be bad in law.” With reference to the additional ground, challenging the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, Ld. Counsel for the assessee essentially a search and seizure operation u/s 132 was carried out at premises of Sh Praveen K Jain on 06.01.2021 during which certain WhatsApp chat pertaining to the appellant were found. The Assessing Officer of the above searched person sent intimation about the whatasap chat to the AO on 28.06.2022. On that basis, e AO was inclined to reopen the assessment for six AY's including under section 153C of the Act. But having done so, the AO took the view that since the year under consideration is search year, he proceeded with the assessment u/s 143(3) of the settled law that when provisions of proviso to section 153C are applied, then date of search is substituted by date of handing over of the documents by the Assessing Officer of the person searched to the Assessing Officer of the other person (present ITA No.1483/Del/2024 Page | 4 ational Thermal Power Co.Ltd. vs CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) additional ground touches the jurisdictional facts are stated examination of any fresh purposes. the Act as per additional ground rendering the assessment order in question to be void, ab-initio and Assessment order passed without approval u/s 153D of the Act and With reference to the additional ground, challenging the assessment for the assessee essentially a search and seizure operation u/s 132 was carried out at the premises of Sh Praveen K Jain on 06.01.2021 during which certain WhatsApp chat pertaining to the appellant were found. The Assessing Officer of the above searched person sent intimation about the whatasap chat to the AO on 28.06.2022. On that basis, e AO was inclined to reopen the assessment for six AY's including . But having done so, the AO took the view that since the year under consideration is search year, he proceeded with the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. settled law that when provisions of proviso to section 153C are applied, then date of search is substituted by date of handing over of the documents by the Assessing Officer of the r person (present assessee). This date was 28.06.2021 which fell in the previous year 2021-22 and the relevant assessment year was 202 [iii] in terms of the recording of satisfaction under Section 153C of the Act, i.e., 30.06.2021 by the AO which cons assets and documents by the AO of the Assessee (other than one searched) as the date of the search on the Assessee, the date on which the AO of the person other than the one searched assumes the possession of the seized assets applying the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. On that analogy insofar as assessee is concerned, block years in view of the first proviso to section 153C of the Act. If that be the case, assessment for AY 2021 u/s 153C of the Act after complying with the requirements of the said section. The AO's of both the person searched and that of the assessee need to and thereafter, the AO of the assessee was required to issue a notice u/s153C calling the assessee to file return of Income after considering the impact of the material found in the case of the person searched. In the present case although both the AO's have recorded separate satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act but the A appellant failed to issue a notice u/s 153C of the Act without which assessment u/s 153C could not be completed and has not been completed. [iv] that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Pr CIT & Anrs vs Ojjus Medicare P 03.04.2024 came across the identical issue. Your Kind attention is invited to para 119(D) to (F) of the decision the decision of M.D. Overseas P Ltd vs Dy CIT W.P.(C) 3092/2023 (Del) and same is extracted as under: ITA No. assessee). This date was 28.06.2021 which fell in the previous year and the relevant assessment year was 2022-2 n terms of the recording of satisfaction under Section 153C of the Act, i.e., 30.06.2021 by the AO 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 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. On that analogy insofar as assessee is concerned, the AY 2021-22 would fall in the block years in view of the first proviso to section 153C of the Act. If that be the case, which is the correct position of law, such for AY 2021-22 was required to be necessary u/s 153C of the Act after complying with the requirements of the said section. The AO's of both the person searched and that of the assessee need to record necessary satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act and thereafter, the AO of the assessee was required to issue a notice u/s153C calling the assessee to file return of Income after considering the impact of the material found in the case of the ched. In the present case although both the AO's have recorded separate satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act but the A appellant failed to issue a notice u/s 153C of the Act without which assessment u/s 153C could not be completed and has not been he Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Pr CIT & Anrs vs Ojjus Medicare P Ltd & Ors in ITA No.52/2024 dated 03.04.2024 came across the identical issue. Your Kind attention is invited to para 119(D) to (F) of the decision which is reproduced in the decision of M.D. Overseas P Ltd vs Dy CIT W.P.(C) 3092/2023 (Del) and same is extracted as under: ITA No.1483/Del/2024 Page | 5 assessee). This date was 28.06.2021 which fell in the previous year -23. n terms of the recording of satisfaction under Section 153C of the trues 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 date on which the AO of the person other than the one searched assumes would be the relevant date for applying the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. On that analogy 22 would fall in the block years in view of the first proviso to section 153C of the Act. If which is the correct position of law, such necessary completed u/s 153C of the Act after complying with the requirements of the said section. The AO's of both the person searched and that of the record necessary satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act and thereafter, the AO of the assessee was required to issue a notice u/s153C calling the assessee to file return of Income after considering the impact of the material found in the case of the ched. In the present case although both the AO's have recorded separate satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act but the AO of the appellant failed to issue a notice u/s 153C of the Act without which assessment u/s 153C could not be completed and has not been he Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Pr CIT td & Ors in ITA No.52/2024 dated 03.04.2024 came across the identical issue. Your Kind attention is which is reproduced in the decision of M.D. Overseas P Ltd vs Dy CIT W.P.(C) 3092/2023 \"PARA 119..... D. The First Proviso to Section 153C introduces a legal fiction on the basis of which the commencement date for co the six year or the ten receipt of books of accounts by the jurisdictional AO. The identification of the starting block for the purposes of computation of the six and the ten year period is governed by the First Proviso to Section 153C, which significantly shifts the reference point spoken of in Section 153A(1), while defining the point from which the period of the \"relevant assessment year\" is to be calculated, to the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the non the case of a non Proviso of Section 153C(1) is an issue which is no longer res integra and decisions of this Court in SSP Aviation and RRJ Securities as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasjit Singh. The aforesaid legal position also stood reiterated by the Supreme Court in Vikram Sujit respondents, therefore, that the block periods would have to be reckoned with reference to the date of search can neither be countenanced nor accepted. E. The reckoning of the six AYs' would require one to firstly identify the FY in which the search was undertaken and which would lead to the ascertainment of the AY relevant to the previous year of search. The block of six AYs' would consequently be those which immediately precede the AY relevant to the year of search. In assessment undertaken in terms of Section 153C, the solitary ITA No. The First Proviso to Section 153C introduces a legal fiction on the basis of which the commencement date for co the six year or the ten-year block is deemed to be the date of receipt of books of accounts by the jurisdictional AO. The identification of the starting block for the purposes of computation of the six and the ten year period is governed by e First Proviso to Section 153C, which significantly shifts the reference point spoken of in Section 153A(1), while defining the point from which the period of the \"relevant assessment year\" is to be calculated, to the date of receipt of the books of nts, documents or assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. The shift of the relevant date in the case of a non-searched person being regulated by the First Proviso of Section 153C(1) is an issue which is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively settled by virtue of the decisions of this Court in SSP Aviation and RRJ Securities as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasjit Singh. The aforesaid legal position also stood reiterated by the Supreme Court in Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia. The submission of the respondents, therefore, that the block periods would have to be reckoned with reference to the date of search can neither be countenanced nor accepted. The reckoning of the six AYs' would require one to firstly ify the FY in which the search was undertaken and which would lead to the ascertainment of the AY relevant to the previous year of search. The block of six AYs' would consequently be those which immediately precede the AY relevant to the year of search. In the case of a search assessment undertaken in terms of Section 153C, the solitary ITA No.1483/Del/2024 Page | 6 The First Proviso to Section 153C introduces a legal fiction on the basis of which the commencement date for computation of year block is deemed to be the date of receipt of books of accounts by the jurisdictional AO. The identification of the starting block for the purposes of computation of the six and the ten year period is governed by e First Proviso to Section 153C, which significantly shifts the reference point spoken of in Section 153A(1), while defining the point from which the period of the \"relevant assessment year\" is to be calculated, to the date of receipt of the books of nts, documents or assets seized by the jurisdictional AO searched person. The shift of the relevant date in searched person being regulated by the First Proviso of Section 153C(1) is an issue which is no longer res stands authoritatively settled by virtue of the decisions of this Court in SSP Aviation and RRJ Securities as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasjit Singh. The aforesaid legal position also stood reiterated by the Supreme kumar Bhatia. The submission of the respondents, therefore, that the block periods would have to be reckoned with reference to the date of search can neither The reckoning of the six AYs' would require one to firstly ify the FY in which the search was undertaken and which would lead to the ascertainment of the AY relevant to the previous year of search. The block of six AYs' would consequently be those which immediately precede the AY the case of a search assessment undertaken in terms of Section 153C, the solitary distinction would be that the previous year of search would stand substituted by the date or the year in which the books of accounts or documents and assets seized are hande to the jurisdictional AO as opposed to the year of search which constitutes the basis for an assessment under Section 153A. F. While the identification and computation of the six AYs' hinges upon the phrase \"immediately preceding the assessment yea relevant to the previous year\" of search, the ten would have to be reckoned from the 31st day of March of the AY relevant to the year of search. This, since undisputedly, Explanation 1 of Section 153A requires us to reckon it \"from the end of to necessarily be acknowledged in light of the statute having consciously adopted the phraseology \"immediately preceding\" when it be in relation to the six expression \"from th speaking of the ten Taking cue from the above decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court and also rel Kumar Bhatia 453 ITR 417 (SC), CIT vs Jasjit 2023 (SC) dated 26.09.2023, CIT vs RRJ Securities Ltd 380 ITR 612 (Del) and SSP Aviation vs DCIT 346 ITR 177 (Del), the legal proposition emerging is that relevant AY's for the purpose of issue of notice u/s 153C will be counted backwa year of the search under proviso to sec 153C as the starting point. If period of six years computed from AY 2022 search as per proviso to sec 153C(1), the present assessment year i..e AY 2021-22 will fall in th assessment year is required to be completed on the basis of material found in the case of searched person by taking recourse to section ITA No. distinction would be that the previous year of search would stand substituted by the date or the year in which the books of accounts or documents and assets seized are hande to the jurisdictional AO as opposed to the year of search which constitutes the basis for an assessment under Section 153A. While the identification and computation of the six AYs' hinges upon the phrase \"immediately preceding the assessment yea relevant to the previous year\" of search, the ten would have to be reckoned from the 31st day of March of the AY relevant to the year of search. This, since undisputedly, Explanation 1 of Section 153A requires us to reckon it \"from the end of the assessment year\". This distinction would have to necessarily be acknowledged in light of the statute having consciously adopted the phraseology \"immediately preceding\" when it be in relation to the six-year period and employing the expression \"from the end of the assessment year\" while speaking of the ten-year block.\" Taking cue from the above decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court and also relying on the decision of ITO vs Vikram Sujit Kumar Bhatia 453 ITR 417 (SC), CIT vs Jasjit Singh CA No.6566 of 2023 (SC) dated 26.09.2023, CIT vs RRJ Securities Ltd 380 ITR 612 (Del) and SSP Aviation vs DCIT 346 ITR 177 (Del), the legal proposition emerging is that relevant AY's for the purpose of issue of notice u/s 153C will be counted backward taking the assessment year of the search under proviso to sec 153C as the starting point. If period of six years computed from AY 2022-23 being the year of search as per proviso to sec 153C(1), the present assessment year 22 will fall in the block assessment year for which assessment year is required to be completed on the basis of material found in the case of searched person by taking recourse to section ITA No.1483/Del/2024 Page | 7 distinction would be that the previous year of search would stand substituted by the date or the year in which the books of accounts or documents and assets seized are handed over to the jurisdictional AO as opposed to the year of search which constitutes the basis for an assessment under Section 153A. While the identification and computation of the six AYs' hinges upon the phrase \"immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year\" of search, the ten-year period would have to be reckoned from the 31st day of March of the AY relevant to the year of search. This, since undisputedly, Explanation 1 of Section 153A requires us to reckon it \"from the assessment year\". This distinction would have to necessarily be acknowledged in light of the statute having consciously adopted the phraseology \"immediately preceding\" year period and employing the e end of the assessment year\" while Taking cue from the above decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi on the decision of ITO vs Vikram Sujit Singh CA No.6566 of 2023 (SC) dated 26.09.2023, CIT vs RRJ Securities Ltd 380 ITR 612 (Del) and SSP Aviation vs DCIT 346 ITR 177 (Del), the legal proposition emerging is that relevant AY's for the purpose of issue of rd taking the assessment year of the search under proviso to sec 153C as the starting point. If 23 being the year of search as per proviso to sec 153C(1), the present assessment year e block assessment year for which assessment year is required to be completed on the basis of material found in the case of searched person by taking recourse to section 153C of IT Act despite recording satisfaction as per requirement of 153C but without i Act. The present issue was identically covered in the decision of Santosh Hospital P Ltd vs DCIT ITA No.282/Del/2020 dated 03.08.2022. [iv] in view of facts stated above, that assessment under appeal has been framed under incorrect provision of law i.e. 143(3) instead of the same mandated under law to be completed u/s 153C only. The judicial courts have dealt the issue of assessment completed under incorrect section in favour of assessee in the following d  CIT v. T. Rangroopchand Chordia [2016] 241 Taxman 221 (Madras HC);  Dr. K.M. Mehaboob v. DCIT [2012] 26 taxmann.com 54 (Kerala HC);  Ashokji Chanduji Thakor v. PCIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 130 (Guj. HC)  Shri Om Prakash Jalkhotia v. ACIT ITA Nos.968, 971/Del./2021  Mikado Realtors P. Ltd. ITA no. 50/DEL/2021;  Sanjay Thakhur v. The DCIT (Central Circle) In ITA no.3559/DEL/2015:  DCIT v Vinod 10. With reference to the challenge to the passed under section 143(3) of the Act assessee also contended that such order being covered u/s 153B(1)(b) of the Act, the approval u/s 153D of the Act was incumbent upon the assessee. approval in the instant case the Act and not under section 153D of the Act, rendering such assessment order to be invalid. The gist of the submissions made on the point in issue on behalf of the assessee is noted hereunder ITA No. 153C of IT Act despite recording satisfaction as per requirement of 153C but without issuing notice to invoke provision of sec 153C of IT Act. The present issue was identically covered in the decision of Santosh Hospital P Ltd vs DCIT ITA No.282/Del/2020 dated in view of facts stated above, that assessment under appeal has been framed under incorrect provision of law i.e. 143(3) instead of the same mandated under law to be completed u/s 153C only. The judicial courts have dealt the issue of assessment completed under incorrect section in favour of assessee in the following d CIT v. T. Rangroopchand Chordia [2016] 241 Taxman 221 (Madras HC); Dr. K.M. Mehaboob v. DCIT [2012] 26 taxmann.com 54 (Kerala Ashokji Chanduji Thakor v. PCIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 130 Shri Om Prakash Jalkhotia v. ACIT ITA Nos.968, 971/Del./2021 Mikado Realtors P. Ltd. ITA no. 50/DEL/2021; Sanjay Thakhur v. The DCIT (Central Circle) In ITA no.3559/DEL/2015: DCIT v Vinod Kumar in ITA no. 2550/DEL/2015.” With reference to the challenge to the impugned assessment order assed under section 143(3) of the Act in question, the Ld. Counsel for the contended that such order being covered u/s 153B(1)(b) of the Act, the approval u/s 153D of the Act was incumbent upon the assessee. approval in the instant case has been taken from the Ld. Addl. CIT u/s 119 of the Act and not under section 153D of the Act, rendering such assessment order to be invalid. The gist of the submissions made on the point in issue on is noted hereunder:- ITA No.1483/Del/2024 Page | 8 153C of IT Act despite recording satisfaction as per requirement of ssuing notice to invoke provision of sec 153C of IT Act. The present issue was identically covered in the decision of Santosh Hospital P Ltd vs DCIT ITA No.282/Del/2020 dated in view of facts stated above, that assessment under appeal has been framed under incorrect provision of law i.e. 143(3) instead of the same mandated under law to be completed u/s 153C only. The judicial courts have dealt the issue of assessment completed under incorrect section in favour of assessee in the following decisions: CIT v. T. Rangroopchand Chordia [2016] 241 Taxman 221 Dr. K.M. Mehaboob v. DCIT [2012] 26 taxmann.com 54 (Kerala Ashokji Chanduji Thakor v. PCIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 130 Shri Om Prakash Jalkhotia v. ACIT ITA Nos.968, 969, 970 & Sanjay Thakhur v. The DCIT (Central Circle) In ITA assessment order Counsel for the contended that such order being covered u/s 153B(1)(b) of the Act, the approval u/s 153D of the Act was incumbent upon the assessee. The CIT u/s 119 of the Act and not under section 153D of the Act, rendering such assessment order to be invalid. The gist of the submissions made on the point in issue on “As per the provisions of section 153D of the Act, no order of assessment / reassessment for any AY's relating to the search action u/s 132 of the Act could have been passed by the AO without prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. To be precise, the requ provision is in relation to the assessment referred in clause (b) of section 153A(1) or those referred in clause (b) of section 1538 of the Act. The present assessment relates to AYY 2021 1538(1)(b) of the Act and that is the reason why the AO has completed the assessment u/s 143(3) treating the assessment being the search year assessment. There is mention in para 13 of the assessment order that the approval is obtained from Addl CIT, Central R dated 30.12.2022 (PB 62) and the same is undisputedly obtained on the date of passing of the above impugned order. The request for approval was made by the assessing officer to Addl CIT, Central Range vide communication dated 29.12.2022 (PB 63) and the above communication shows that approval has been sought under section 119 of IT Act in accordance Board's order dated 15.07.2022 under above section. Accordingly, the above authority granted approval dated 3 62) and the approval was accorded u/s 119 of IT Act in accordance with CBDT order dated 15.07.2022. The important facts emerging from above details are as under: 1. There is no authority/power/mechanism of granting approval in the provision of s with the condonation/relaxations/clarifications to mitigate hardship to the taxpayers in the taxation administration. No burden of compliance is added through the circular/notification issued under above sectio the research done by the appellant under which approval is mandated to be taken by the AO under any CBDT order. As a ITA No. As per the provisions of section 153D of the Act, no order of assessment / reassessment for any AY's relating to the search action u/s 132 of the Act could have been passed by the AO without prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. To be precise, the requirement of the approval under above provision is in relation to the assessment referred in clause (b) of section 153A(1) or those referred in clause (b) of section 1538 of the Act. The present assessment relates to AYY 2021-22 which covered by section (1)(b) of the Act and that is the reason why the AO has completed the assessment u/s 143(3) treating the assessment being the search year There is mention in para 13 of the assessment order that the approval is obtained from Addl CIT, Central Range 08, New Delhi vide communication dated 30.12.2022 (PB 62) and the same is undisputedly obtained on the date of passing of the above impugned order. The request for approval was made by the assessing officer to Addl CIT, Central Range-08, New Delhi e communication dated 29.12.2022 (PB 63) and the above communication shows that approval has been sought under section 119 of IT Act in accordance Board's order dated 15.07.2022 under above section. Accordingly, the above authority granted approval dated 30.12.2022 (PB 62) and the approval was accorded u/s 119 of IT Act in accordance with CBDT order dated 15.07.2022. The important facts emerging from above There is no authority/power/mechanism of granting approval in the provision of sec 119 of IT Act which provision merely deals with the condonation/relaxations/clarifications to mitigate hardship to the taxpayers in the taxation administration. No burden of compliance is added through the circular/notification issued under above section. There is no CBDT order found from the research done by the appellant under which approval is mandated to be taken by the AO under any CBDT order. As a ITA No.1483/Del/2024 Page | 9 As per the provisions of section 153D of the Act, no order of assessment / reassessment for any AY's relating to the search action u/s 132 of the Act could have been passed by the AO without prior approval of the Joint irement of the approval under above provision is in relation to the assessment referred in clause (b) of section 153A(1) or those referred in clause (b) of section 1538 of the Act. The 22 which covered by section (1)(b) of the Act and that is the reason why the AO has completed the assessment u/s 143(3) treating the assessment being the search year There is mention in para 13 of the assessment order that the approval is ange 08, New Delhi vide communication dated 30.12.2022 (PB 62) and the same is undisputedly obtained on the date of passing of the above impugned order. The request for approval was 08, New Delhi e communication dated 29.12.2022 (PB 63) and the above communication shows that approval has been sought under section 119 of IT Act in accordance Board's order dated 15.07.2022 under above section. 0.12.2022 (PB 62) and the approval was accorded u/s 119 of IT Act in accordance with CBDT order dated 15.07.2022. The important facts emerging from above There is no authority/power/mechanism of granting approval in ec 119 of IT Act which provision merely deals with the condonation/relaxations/clarifications to mitigate hardship to the taxpayers in the taxation administration. No burden of compliance is added through the circular/notification n. There is no CBDT order found from the research done by the appellant under which approval is mandated to be taken by the AO under any CBDT order. As a matter of no CBDT order of above file number was found in the public domain. Without prejudice, the fa department has taken approval, be it rightly or wrongly but u/s 119 of IT Act not u/s 153D of the Act before passing of the impugned assessment order. 2. In the absence of any such approval taken by the assessing officer prior to passing o assessment order is non and language used in Sec. 153D of the Act and the heading \"prior approval necessary for assessment in cases of search or requisition\" to Sec. 153D do not leave i intention of the legislature to make the compliance of sec153D mandatory. It is a trite law that if a provision is mandatory, an act done in breach thereof will be invalid. The CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12.3.2008, the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory that the assessments of search cases should be made with the prior approval of superior authority, so that the superior authority applies his mind on the materials and other attending circumstances on the basis of which the officer is making the assessment and after due application of mind and on the basis of seized materials, the superior authority have to approve the draft Assessment order. To support the above proposition of law, reliance is placed on following decisions: * Ajay Sharma, New Delhi vs DCIT, Ghaziabad ITAT Delhi ITA.No.3554/Del./2015 dt.14.2.2020; * PCIT v. Sunrise Finlease (P.) Ltd. 252 Taxman 407 (Guj) (HC); * Shri Jaykumar Uttamchand Pokarna ITAT Pune 549/PN/2011, dt.5.10.2012; ITA No. matter of no CBDT order of above file number was found in the public domain. Without prejudice, the fact remains that the department has taken approval, be it rightly or wrongly but u/s 119 of IT Act not u/s 153D of the Act before passing of the impugned assessment order. In the absence of any such approval taken by the assessing officer prior to passing of order u/s 143(3), the resultant assessment order is non-est and invalid in law. The wordings and language used in Sec. 153D of the Act and the heading \"prior approval necessary for assessment in cases of search or requisition\" to Sec. 153D do not leave iota of doubt about the very intention of the legislature to make the compliance of sec153D mandatory. It is a trite law that if a provision is mandatory, an act done in breach thereof will be invalid. The CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12.3.2008, the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory that the assessments of search cases should be made with the prior approval of superior authority, so that the superior authority applies his mind on the materials and other attending circumstances on the basis of which the officer is making the assessment and after due application of mind and on the basis of seized materials, the superior authority have to approve the draft Assessment order. To support the above proposition of law, iance is placed on following decisions: * Ajay Sharma, New Delhi vs DCIT, Ghaziabad ITAT Delhi ITA.No.3554/Del./2015 dt.14.2.2020; PCIT v. Sunrise Finlease (P.) Ltd. 252 Taxman 407 (Guj) (HC); Shri Jaykumar Uttamchand Pokarna ITAT Pune PN/2011, dt.5.10.2012; ITA No.1483/Del/2024 Page | 10 matter of no CBDT order of above file number was found in the emains that the department has taken approval, be it rightly or wrongly but u/s 119 of IT Act not u/s 153D of the Act before passing of the In the absence of any such approval taken by the assessing f order u/s 143(3), the resultant est and invalid in law. The wordings and language used in Sec. 153D of the Act and the heading \"prior approval necessary for assessment in cases of search or ota of doubt about the very intention of the legislature to make the compliance of sec153D mandatory. It is a trite law that if a provision is mandatory, an The CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12.3.2008, clarifies that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory that the assessments of search cases should be made with the prior approval of superior authority, so that the superior authority applies his mind on the materials and other attending circumstances on the basis of which the officer is making the assessment and after due application of mind and on the basis of seized materials, the superior authority have to approve the draft Assessment order. To support the above proposition of law, * Ajay Sharma, New Delhi vs DCIT, Ghaziabad ITAT Delhi - PCIT v. Sunrise Finlease (P.) Ltd. 252 Taxman 407 (Guj) (HC); Shri Jaykumar Uttamchand Pokarna ITAT Pune -ITA NO. * CIT vs. Shri. Akil Gulamali Somji ITA (L) HC Bom NO.1416 OF 2012 dt. 15.1.2013 SC dismissed SLP no.19389 of 2013 on 5.8.2013; * Ch. Krishna Murthy ITA No. 766/Hyd/2012 The above legal ground had been dismissed by page 29 of the Appellate order with the observation that since the Impugned order is not u/s 153C of the Act and therefore there was no requirement for the AO to obtain prior approval u/s 153D of the Act. The above view of the Ld section 153D of the Act which requires the prior approval even in the cases where the assessment is completed u/s 143(3) in the year of search, the year covered by section 1538(1)(b) of the Act. It may since the addition is made on the basis of the material found in the case of search on other assessee, the assessment is clearly the assessment covered by section 1538(1)(b) of the Act requiring prior approval u/s 153D of the Act and absence of such approval invalidates the assessment order impugned in the present appeal. The appellant has requested number of times to the AO about the circular on the basis of which approval has been obtained u/s 119 before passing of the order. But the provide such circular and appellant is unable to find such circular.” 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee then contended that the assessment order giving rise to present appellate proceedings, is not sustainable in law on both Courts. 12. The Ld.Sr.DR for the taken by the AO and the Ld.CIT(A). On the assessee, challenging the jurisdiction instead of proceedings u/s 153 pointed out that the provision of section 143(2) r.w.s 143(3) of the Act entitles the AO to make regular assessment subject such jurisdiction. The jurisdiction ITA No. CIT vs. Shri. Akil Gulamali Somji ITA (L) HC Bom NO.1416 OF 2012 dt. 15.1.2013 SC dismissed SLP no.19389 of 2013 on Ch. Krishna Murthy ITA No. 766/Hyd/2012- dt.13.2.2015 The above legal ground had been dismissed by the Ld CIT(A) In para 9.3 page 29 of the Appellate order with the observation that since the Impugned order is not u/s 153C of the Act and therefore there was no requirement for the AO to obtain prior approval u/s 153D of the Act. The above view of the Ld CIT(A) Ld CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of the section 153D of the Act which requires the prior approval even in the cases where the assessment is completed u/s 143(3) in the year of search, the year covered by section 1538(1)(b) of the Act. It may kindly be noted that since the addition is made on the basis of the material found in the case of search on other assessee, the assessment is clearly the assessment covered by section 1538(1)(b) of the Act requiring prior approval u/s 153D absence of such approval invalidates the assessment order impugned in the present appeal. The appellant has requested number of times to the AO about the circular on the basis of which approval has been obtained u/s 119 before passing of the order. But the Ld AO is unable to provide such circular and appellant is unable to find such circular.” The Ld. Counsel for the assessee then contended that the assessment order giving rise to present appellate proceedings, is not sustainable in law on The Ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied upon the actions taken by the AO and the Ld.CIT(A). On the additional ground assessee, challenging the jurisdiction assumed towards regular assessment instead of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, the Ld.Sr.DR for the pointed out that the provision of section 143(2) r.w.s 143(3) of the Act entitles the AO to make regular assessment subject to available time limit for invoking such jurisdiction. The jurisdiction available for making regular assessment ITA No.1483/Del/2024 Page | 11 CIT vs. Shri. Akil Gulamali Somji ITA (L) HC Bom NO.1416-19 OF 2012 dt. 15.1.2013 SC dismissed SLP no.19389 of 2013 on dt.13.2.2015 the Ld CIT(A) In para 9.3 page 29 of the Appellate order with the observation that since the Impugned order is not u/s 153C of the Act and therefore there was no requirement for the AO to obtain prior approval u/s 153D of the Act. The CIT(A) Ld CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of the section 153D of the Act which requires the prior approval even in the cases where the assessment is completed u/s 143(3) in the year of search, the kindly be noted that since the addition is made on the basis of the material found in the case of search on other assessee, the assessment is clearly the assessment covered by section 1538(1)(b) of the Act requiring prior approval u/s 153D absence of such approval invalidates the assessment order impugned in the present appeal. The appellant has requested number of times to the AO about the circular on the basis of which approval has been Ld AO is unable to provide such circular and appellant is unable to find such circular.” The Ld. Counsel for the assessee then contended that the assessment order giving rise to present appellate proceedings, is not sustainable in law on on the other hand, relied upon the actions raised by the assumed towards regular assessment C of the Act, the Ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue pointed out that the provision of section 143(2) r.w.s 143(3) of the Act entitles time limit for invoking king regular assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act is very wide and available for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act section 143(2) of the Act cannot be assailed AO to frame the assessment u for the Revenue thus, contended that no fault can be found order framed under section 143(3) 12. We have carefully considered records. 13. We shall advert to the additional ground at the threshold to the root of the matter. As per the additional ground, the assessee seeks to submit that pursuant to search and seizure operation carried the Act on 06.01.2021, a the Act by the AO of the searched person that seized documents/digital data/information found in the course of search indicates that the other person namely, the assessee herein has purchased a property in which component is involved and such information/document etc. determination of total income of other person namely, the assessee. 13.1. The relevant satisfaction note drawn by the AO reproduced as under:- 1. Name of the group, if any, searched 2. Name of the searched assessee in whose case assets (money, b jewellery or other valuable thing) or papers (books of account or documents) seized u/s 132 of the Act 3. PAN of searched person 4. Name and address of the person to whom seized assets/papers as in (2) above belong 5. PAN of the other persons 6. Identification of seized assets/papers which in the opinion of the AO of the searched assessee (S.No.2), belong to the other person (S.No4) 7. (i) Details of panchnam through which relevant asset/document was seized/requisitioned ITA No. u/s 143(2) of the Act is very wide and broader and as long as time limit is available for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act cannot be assailed. There is no statutory bar on AO to frame the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue thus, contended that no fault can be found with assessment order framed under section 143(3) of the Act. considered the rival submissions and perused the case We shall advert to the additional ground at the threshold, since it strikes to the root of the matter. As per the additional ground, the assessee seeks to submit that pursuant to search and seizure operation carried out u/s 13 satisfaction note was drawn under section the Act by the AO of the searched person that seized documents/digital data/information found in the course of search indicates that the other person ssee herein has purchased a property in which component is involved and such information/document etc. has bearing determination of total income of other person namely, the assessee. The relevant satisfaction note drawn by the AO of the searched person is Name of the group, if any, searched HANS Group Name of the searched assessee in whose case assets (money, bullion, valuable article or thing) or papers (books of account or ) seized u/s 132 of the Act M/s. Jainco Ltd., G-5, Sikka Complex, Preet Vihar, New Delhi 110092. AADCJ6207E Name and address of the person to whom seized assets/papers as in (2) Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur, R/o-B-132, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110002. AERPT3941E of seized assets/papers which in the opinion of the AO of the searched assessee (S.No.2), belong to (i) cloned data of Vaibhav Jain’s mobile marked as Annexure A-4 seized from the premise at G 2, Plot No.5, Sikka Complex, Preet Vi Delhi. (i) Details of panchnama & annexure through which relevant asset/document was Panchnama at G-2, Plot No.5, Si Preet VIhar, New Delhi, Annexure ITA No.1483/Del/2024 Page | 12 as long as time limit is , the notice issued under . There is no statutory bar on the 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. Sr. DR with assessment and perused the case since it strikes to the root of the matter. As per the additional ground, the assessee seeks to out u/s 132 of nder section 153C of the Act by the AO of the searched person that seized documents/digital data/information found in the course of search indicates that the other person ssee herein has purchased a property in which some cash has bearing on the determination of total income of other person namely, the assessee. of the searched person is 5, Sikka Complex, Preet Vihar, New Delhi- 110002. Jain’s mobile marked 4 seized from the premise at G- , Preet Vihar, New 2, Plot No.5, Sikka Complex, Preet VIhar, New Delhi, Annexure-A4 (ii) Date of above panchnama (iii) Address of the place/premises from where asset/paper was seized/impounded (iv) Description of r asset/paper(s) (v) The brief reasons on the basis of which the AO reached to the conclusion that the relevant seized asset/paper belongs to the other persons (use Annexure if required). 8. Assessment Years involved 13.2. It is further noticed that based on satisfaction note documents/digital data pertaining to the assessee, searched person, the AO of the assessee to the assessee which reads as under: “For initiating proceedings under Section 153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 in the case of Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur (PAN: AERPT3941E), AYs. 2015 Action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted in HANS Group of cases by Investigation wing, New Delhi on 06.01.2021. It has been brought to the notice of the undersigned by the AO of M/s. Jainco Ltd. (in the instant case both the AO is same), being on covered in group search and in whose case action under section 132 of the Income tax Act was taken, that during the search and seizure action, the ITA No. (ii) Date of above panchnama 10.01.2021 (iii) Address of the place/premises from where asset/paper was G-2, Plot No.5, Sikka Complex New Delhi-110092. (iv) Description of relevant During the course of search u/s 132 of the Act conducted at G-2, Plot No.5, Sikka Complex, Preet Vihar, New Delhi-110092 following assets/ documents/digital data were seized. Cloned data of Vaibhav Jain's mobile marked as Annexure A-4 containing images of kachchi parchi of whatsapp chat between Vaibhav Jain and thakur having the details of total sale consideration of the property at B Floor, Preet Vihar, in which unaccounted cash amounting to Rs. 1,05,50,000/ Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur. (v) The brief reasons on the basis of which the AO reached to the conclusion that the relevant seized asset/paper belongs to the other persons (use While examining the seized assets and seized documents/digital data and the data seized and Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur i.e. the person other than the searched person. the basis of the documents/digital data seized and information contained therein, I am satisf that action u/s 153C of I.T. Act, 1961 is required in the case of Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur. Accordingly, the AO holding jurisdiction over the case of Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur is being intimated to take action u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Assessment Years involved 2015-16 to 2021-22 It is further noticed that based on satisfaction note and the seized documents/digital data pertaining to the assessee, as supplied by the AO of the of the assessee drew the satisfaction note in relation to the assessee which reads as under:- For initiating proceedings under Section 153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 in the case of Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur (PAN: AERPT3941E), AYs. 2015-16 to 2021-22. er section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted in HANS Group of cases by Investigation wing, New Delhi on 06.01.2021. It has been brought to the notice of the undersigned by the AO of M/s. Jainco Ltd. (in the instant case both the AO is same), being one of the persons covered in group search and in whose case action under section 132 of the Income tax Act was taken, that during the search and seizure action, the ITA No.1483/Del/2024 Page | 13 2, Plot No.5, Sikka Complex, Preet Vihar, During the course of search u/s 132 of the Act ot No.5, Sikka Complex, 110092 following /digital data were seized. Jain's mobile marked 4 containing images of kachchi parchi of whatsapp chat between Vaibhav Jain and thakur having the details of total sale consideration of the property at B-132, First Floor, Preet Vihar, in which unaccounted cash g to Rs. 1,05,50,000/- received by While examining the seized assets and seized documents/digital data and the data seized and Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur i.e. the person other than the searched person. the basis of the documents/digital data seized and information contained therein, I am satisfied that action u/s 153C of I.T. Act, 1961 is required in the case of Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur. Accordingly, the AO holding jurisdiction over the case of Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur is being intimated to take action u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961. and the seized as supplied by the AO of the isfaction note in relation For initiating proceedings under Section 153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 in the case of Smt. Mukul Rani er section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted in HANS Group of cases by Investigation wing, New Delhi on 06.01.2021. It has been brought to the notice of the undersigned by the AO of M/s. Jainco e of the persons covered in group search and in whose case action under section 132 of the Income tax Act was taken, that during the search and seizure action, the seized Assets and documents/digital data and information contained therein relate to, Smt. M searched person. The Assessing officer of the searched person has recorded his satisfaction dated 28.06.2022 that seized Assets and documents/digital, data and information contained therein relate to the assessee i.e. Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur Premises from where assets and documents/digital data found and seized: Premises at G-2, Plot No.5, Sikka Complex, Preet Vihar, New Delhi. Annexure Page No./File Description Remarks A-4 Cloned data of Vaibhav Jain’s mobile i-phone. Cloned data of Vaibhav Jain's mobile marked as Annexure A Complex, Preet Vihar, New Delhi having the details of the actual sale consideration of the property at B Floor, Preet Vihar, an noticed that, Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur has sold the above said property in which amount of Rs. 1,05,50,000/ received in cash by Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur. 2. After examining the seized documents/digital data and informa contained therein, it is observed that the assessee i.e. Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur has purchased the above mentioned property in which huge.cash component involved thereof. After examining the documents/digital data and information contained therein, I a data and information contained therein, also relate to Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur and have a bearing on the determination of total income of this person. In view of the same, I am further satisfied that it is a fit case for initiating proceedings u/s 153C 2015-16 to 2020-21. Proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is also being initiated for A.Y. 2021 Act. 3. Accordingly, notices u/ notice u/s 143(2) for AY 2021 income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No. seized Assets and documents/digital data and information contained therein relate to, Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur the person other than the searched person. The Assessing officer of the searched person has recorded his satisfaction dated 28.06.2022 that seized Assets and documents/digital, data and information contained therein relate to the i.e. Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur Premises from where assets and documents/digital data found and seized: 2, Plot No.5, Sikka Complex, Preet Vihar, New Delhi. Remarks Cloned data of Vaibhav Jain's mobile marked as Annexure A-4 seized from the premise at G-2, Plot No. 5. Sikka Complex, Preet Vihar, New Delhi having the details of the actual sale consideration of the property at B Floor, Preet Vihar, and payments in cash thereof, it is noticed that, Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur has sold the above said property in which amount of Rs. 1,05,50,000/ received in cash by Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur. After examining the seized documents/digital data and informa contained therein, it is observed that the assessee i.e. Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur has purchased the above mentioned property in which huge.cash component involved thereof. After examining the documents/digital data and information contained therein, I am satisfied that documents/digital data and information contained therein, also relate to Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur and have a bearing on the determination of total income of this person. In view of the same, I am further satisfied that it is a fit case for nitiating proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act. 1961 for the A.Ys. 21. Proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is also being initiated for A.Y. 2021-22 by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Accordingly, notices u/s 153C for the A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2020 notice u/s 143(2) for AY 2021-22 are being issued as per provisions of the income Tax Act, 1961.” ITA No.1483/Del/2024 Page | 14 seized Assets and documents/digital data and information contained ukul Rani Thakur the person other than the searched person. The Assessing officer of the searched person has recorded his satisfaction dated 28.06.2022 that seized Assets and documents/digital, data and information contained therein relate to the Premises from where assets and documents/digital data found and seized: Cloned data of Vaibhav Jain's mobile marked as Annexure 2, Plot No. 5. Sikka Complex, Preet Vihar, New Delhi having the details of the actual sale consideration of the property at B-132, First d payments in cash thereof, it is noticed that, Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur has sold the above said property in which amount of Rs. 1,05,50,000/- was received in cash by Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur. After examining the seized documents/digital data and information contained therein, it is observed that the assessee i.e. Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur has purchased the above mentioned property in which huge.cash component involved thereof. After examining the documents/digital data m satisfied that documents/digital data and information contained therein, also relate to Smt. Mukul Rani Thakur and have a bearing on the determination of total income of this person. In view of the same, I am further satisfied that it is a fit case for of the Income Tax Act. 1961 for the A.Ys. 21. Proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is 22 by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the 16 to 2020-21 and 22 are being issued as per provisions of the 13.3. On perusal of the satisfaction note of the searched person, it is observed that Assessment Year involved is 2021-22. The AO of the assessee initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act for Assessment Year 2015 2020-21. With reference to Assessment Year 2021 proceeded to invoke the regular assessment proceedings by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In this backdrop, the assessee contends that in the light of provision of section 153C of the Act, data of search stands the data of handing the documents by the AO of the person searched to the AO of the other person namely, the present assessee. The date of handing over is 21.06.2021 which falls in previous year 202 2022-23 by applying the proviso preceding year prior to the year of search i.e. AY 2021 in block years having regard to proviso to section 153C of the Act. Consequently, it was incumbent upon AO to assess the alleged und income pertaining to AY 2021 153C of the Act and such assessment of income emanating from search is outside the scope of section 143(3) of the Act. 14. We find substantial force in the plea raised on b While search in the instant case was carried on 06.01.2021 i.e. previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2021 previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2022 assessment upto Assessment Year 2021 section 153C of the Act. This being so undisclosed income for Assessment Year 2021 153C of the Act. The AO has committed appreciation of jurisdictional provisions of section 153C of the Act by excluding Assessment Year 2021 erroneously based on actual date of search rather than based on date of receipts of incriminating documents. ITA No. On perusal of the satisfaction note of the searched person, it is observed that Assessment Year involved is shown to be 2015-16 to Assessment Year 22. The AO of the assessee, in turn, framed the satisfaction note for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act for Assessment Year 2015 21. With reference to Assessment Year 2021-22 in question, proceeded to invoke the regular assessment proceedings by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In this backdrop, the assessee contends that in the light of provision of section 153C of the Act, data of search stands substituted by ing the documents by the AO of the person searched to the AO of the other person namely, the present assessee. The date of handing over is 21.06.2021 which falls in previous year 2021-22 relevant to Assessment Year by applying the proviso to section 153C of the Act. The preceding year prior to the year of search i.e. AY 2021-22 in question would fall in block years having regard to proviso to section 153C of the Act. Consequently, it was incumbent upon AO to assess the alleged und income pertaining to AY 2021-22 in the hands of the assessee under section 153C of the Act and such assessment of income emanating from search is outside the scope of section 143(3) of the Act. We find substantial force in the plea raised on behalf of the assessee hile search in the instant case was carried on 06.01.2021 i.e. previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2021-22, the documents were handed over in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2022-23. Based on such ssessment upto Assessment Year 2021-22 stood covered within ambit of section 153C of the Act. This being so, domain for assessment for Assessment Year 2021-22 falls within sweep of section 153C of the Act. The AO has committed substantive error in proper of jurisdictional provisions of section 153C of the Act by excluding Assessment Year 2021-22 from the ambit of section 153C of the Act erroneously based on actual date of search rather than based on date of s of incriminating documents. In order to frame assessment based on ITA No.1483/Del/2024 Page | 15 On perusal of the satisfaction note of the searched person, it is observed 16 to Assessment Year framed the satisfaction note for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-16 to 22 in question, the AO proceeded to invoke the regular assessment proceedings by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In this backdrop, the assessee contends that in the light substituted by ing the documents by the AO of the person searched to the AO of the other person namely, the present assessee. The date of handing over is relevant to Assessment Year of the Act. The immediate 22 in question would fall in block years having regard to proviso to section 153C of the Act. Consequently, it was incumbent upon AO to assess the alleged undisclosed 22 in the hands of the assessee under section 153C of the Act and such assessment of income emanating from search is ehalf of the assessee. hile search in the instant case was carried on 06.01.2021 i.e. previous year 22, the documents were handed over in the Based on such matrix, the 22 stood covered within ambit of domain for assessment qua 22 falls within sweep of section error in proper of jurisdictional provisions of section 153C of the Act by 22 from the ambit of section 153C of the Act erroneously based on actual date of search rather than based on date of In order to frame assessment based on the searched document, the notice 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act. 15. The regular assessment passed Act without aid of section 153C of the Act searched person thus, is not supportable in law. The framed under section 143(3) of the Act thus, is void on behalf of the assessee. Hence, the assessment order law and requires to be quashed at the threshold. 16. In the light of delineation, we do not consider it necessary aspects and aspects of merits raised 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ITA No. document, the notice ought to have been issued u 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act. assessment passed by issuance of notice u/s 1 out aid of section 153C of the Act despite ‘satisfaction note’ from AO of is not supportable in law. The impugned 143(3) of the Act thus, is void ab-initio as rightly pleaded . Hence, the assessment order passed is vitiated in to be quashed at the threshold. delineation, we do not consider it necessary aspects and aspects of merits raised to indulge. peal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th November, 202 Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI ITA No.1483/Del/2024 Page | 16 issued under section u/s 143(2) of the despite ‘satisfaction note’ from AO of impugned assessment as rightly pleaded passed is vitiated in on other legal , 2024. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "