" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.103/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nitin Kumar Saraiya Block-A, 146, Bangur Avenue, Kolkata-700055. (PAN: AWIPS2588P) Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AR Respondent by : Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (in short “CIT(A) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) dated 15.07.2024 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that there was a search on the premise of Shree Kuberji Group of Surat on 06.02.2020. It was the submission that 2 IT(SS)A No. 103/Kol/2024 Nitin Kumar Saraiya, AY: 2015-16 there was allegation of ‘on money’ transaction for the purchase of certain commercial property by the assessee in the name of ‘Westfield Shopping Centre’. It was the submission that as per the Assessing Officer in para 3 of the assessment order that the satisfaction note and the materials were forwarded to the assessee’s Assessing Officer only on 12.10.2023. It was the submission that consequently, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh reported in [2023] 458 ITR 437 (SC) the period for which the assessee would be required to file the return u/s. 153C would commence only from the date when the materials were forwarded to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer being the AY 2024- 25 relevant to the date 12.10.2023. It was the submission that under normal circumstances u/s. 153C, reopening is permissible only for six previous years relevant to the previous year in which sanction has been received. However, the provisions of section 153C extends to ten years if the income which has been alleged to escape assessment/undisclosed income was to an extent of Rs. 50,00,000/- and the same was also represented in the form of asset. The Ld. AR submitted that the impugned assessment year is 2015-16 which admittedly, is the 10th year and the income assessed for the full block period under section 153C was only Rs.40,06,729/-. It was the submission that as the undisclosed income was below Rs.50 lakh the period for filing the return gets reduced to six assessment years and consequently notice issued u/s. 153C in the case of the assessment year 2015-16 was impermissible and the notice along with the consequential assessment order is liable to be quashed. The Ld. AR also filed written submissions as follows: 3 IT(SS)A No. 103/Kol/2024 Nitin Kumar Saraiya, AY: 2015-16 4 IT(SS)A No. 103/Kol/2024 Nitin Kumar Saraiya, AY: 2015-16 5 IT(SS)A No. 103/Kol/2024 Nitin Kumar Saraiya, AY: 2015-16 6 IT(SS)A No. 103/Kol/2024 Nitin Kumar Saraiya, AY: 2015-16 7 IT(SS)A No. 103/Kol/2024 Nitin Kumar Saraiya, AY: 2015-16 8 IT(SS)A No. 103/Kol/2024 Nitin Kumar Saraiya, AY: 2015-16 4. In reply, the Ld. CIT, DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasjit Singh (supra), the period for which the assessee is required to file the return would start from the year in which the information/material are forwarded to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In the impugned appeal, the information has been forwarded to as per the AAO on 12.10.2023, therefore, six years from the AY 2024-25 would expire with the AY 2018-19. Admittedly, the undisclosed income 9 IT(SS)A No. 103/Kol/2024 Nitin Kumar Saraiya, AY: 2015-16 determined itself is below Rs. 50 lakh and, therefore, the extended period of 10 years is not available to the revenue. This being so, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasjit Singh (supra) it is held that the notice issued u/s. 153C for the AY 2015-16 is bad in law and stand quashed. As the notice u/s. 153C stands quashed consequently, the assessment order passed for the AY 2015-16 also stands quashed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is dictated and pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Awasthi) (George Mathan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 7th May, 2025 JD, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: Shri Nitin Kumar Sariya 2. The Respondent. DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata 6. Guard file. True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata "