TRANSLINE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI V. DCIT ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

CO 137/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) which had allowed the appeal of the assessee, M/s Transline Technologies Ltd, for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The core issue was the calculation of the block period for assessments under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following a search operation. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in calculating the block period from the date of receipt of seized materials by the Assessing Officer of the non-searched person, rather than from the date of initiation of the search. The tribunal, referencing decisions from the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the block period should be calculated from the date the books of account, documents, or assets were received by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783731 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh, Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd & Others, SSP Aviation Ltd v. Dy.CIT, CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd, ITO v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONIKA SINGH; CT
• Assessee Lawyers: MS CHINU BHASIN

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3693/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2011-12] ITA No. 3694/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2012-13] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. M/s Transline Technologies Ltd Central Circle -28 23-A, 3rd Floor, Moti Nagar New Delhi West Delhi, New Delhi PAN: AABCT 3687 J CO No. 36/DEL/2025 (A/o ITA No.3693/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2011-12]) [ CO No. 37/DEL/2025 (A/o ITA No. 3694/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2012-13]) M/s Transline Technologies Ltd Vs. The Dy. C.I.T 23-A, 3rd Floor, Moti Nagar Central Circle -28 West Delhi, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AABCT 3687 J Assessee By : M/s Chinu Bhasin Department By : Shri Monika Singh, CT-DR Date of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 3693 & 3694/DEL/ /2025 Co No. 136 & 137/DEL/2025…Transline Technologies [A.Y 2011-12 & 2012-13] Page 2 of 9 ORDER PER BENCH:- The above captioned appeals by the Revenue are preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-25, New Delhi dated 28.02.2025 and Cross objections filed by the assessee for A.Ys 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. Since the underlying facts are common in all the appeals of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The challenge in the grounds raised by the Revenue is in respect of the ld. CIT(A)’s action in holding that block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Act have to be calculated from the date of receipt of the books of account, documents or assets seized by the Assessing Officer of the non-searched person and not from the date of initiation of search by relying upon the first proviso to section 153C of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short]. 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. 4. Both the parties before us fairly agreed that ITA No. 3693/DEL/2025 in the case of Transline Technologies be taken as the lead case and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 3693 & 3694/DEL/ /2025 Co No. 136 & 137/DEL/2025…Transline Technologies [A.Y 2011-12 & 2012-13] Page 3 of 9 force in all other appeals in view of identical facts, except with variance in figures. Accordingly, we proceed to take up the appeal in ITA No. 3693/DEL/2025. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a part of group of Ojjus Medicare where search was taken place. The assessments made u/s 153C on the group entities was decided by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] on the assessee due to search conducted at third party (Alankit Group) on 18.10.2019 during the previous year 2019-20 relevant to AY 2020-21. The Assessing Officer of the searched party drew a satisfaction note on 14.02.2022 and handed over the seized materials to the AO of the assessee on 17.02.2022. thereafter the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153C of the Act to the assessee on 22.03.2022 for AY 2010-11 to AY 2020-21. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer made additions. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now the Revenue is aggrieved against the order of the ld. CIT(A) and has come in appeal before us. 7. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that as the satisfaction was recorded on 17.02.2022, the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 3693 & 3694/DEL/ /2025 Co No. 136 & 137/DEL/2025…Transline Technologies [A.Y 2011-12 & 2012-13] Page 4 of 9 is made, as per the proviso of section 153C, becomes AY 2023-24. The ten assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made, begins from AY 2023-24. 8. The ld AR vehemently argued that the impugned A.Y 2011-12 and AY 2012-13, is therefore, out of the block of ten assessment years for which assessment could be made. It was submitted that as the satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act was recorded on 17.02.2022, the last of the ten A.Ys for which the Assessing Officer can assume jurisdiction is A.Y. 2014-15. The impugned A.Y is 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 and is therefore, out of block of ten assessment years and therefore the Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction for making assessment. The ld. counsel for the assessee also strongly relied upon the latest decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd & Others [2024] 161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi) order dated 03.04.2024. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that this issue of the date of search for persons covered under section 153C and the calculation of ten preceding assessment years from the end of the relevant assessment year, is no longer res-integra. It has now been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh 458 ITR 437(SC). The relevant Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 3693 & 3694/DEL/ /2025 Co No. 136 & 137/DEL/2025…Transline Technologies [A.Y 2011-12 & 2012-13] Page 5 of 9 law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh 458 ITR 437(SC) are read as under: “It is evident on a plain interpretation of Section 153C (1) that the Parliamentary intent to enact the proviso was to cater not merely to the question of abatement but also with regard to the date from which the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of which the returns were to be filed by the third party (whose premises are not searched and in respect of whom the specific provision under Section 153C was enacted. The revenue argued that the proviso [to Section 153(c)(1)] is confined in its application to the question of abatement. It is quite plausible that the AO seized of the materials….would take his own time to forward the papers and materials belonging to the third party, to the concerned AO. In that event if the date would virtually ‘relate back’ as is sought to be contended by the revenue, (to the date of seizure), the prejudice caused to the third party, who would be drawn into proceedings as it were unwittingly (and in many cases have no concern with it at all), is disproportionate.” 10. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has further elaborated the legal dictum in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd [2024] [supra] wherein it has held as under: “First Proviso to Section 153C introduces a legal fiction on the basis of which the commencement date for computation of 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 the First Proviso to Section 153C, which Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 3693 & 3694/DEL/ /2025 Co No. 136 & 137/DEL/2025…Transline Technologies [A.Y 2011-12 & 2012-13] Page 6 of 9 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-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 Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2012) 346 ITR 177 ( Delhi)( HC) and CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd 2015 SCC Online Del 13085 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v Jasjit Singh 2023 SCC Online SC1265. The aforesaid legal position also stood reiterated by the Supreme Court in ITO v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia 2023 SCC Online SC 370. The submission of the revenue, 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 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 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 handed over to the jurisdictional AO as opposed to the year of search which constitutes the basis for an assessment under Section 153A.” 11. The law as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court as above, declares that as per provisions of section 153C of the Act, the commencement date for computation of the six/ten assessment years is deemed to be the date of receipt of books of Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 3693 & 3694/DEL/ /2025 Co No. 136 & 137/DEL/2025…Transline Technologies [A.Y 2011-12 & 2012-13] Page 7 of 9 account/materials/asset, belonging/pertaining to non-searched person, by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the non-searched person. In other words, date of recording of the satisfaction u/s 153C in the case of the non-searched person becomes date of search in the case of non- searched person [the assessee in the present case]. 12. In the instant case of the assessee (non-searched person), as the satisfaction note was recorded on 17.02.2022, the deemed date of search would become the date of recording of satisfaction i.e., 17.02.2022. The assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is deemed to have been executed would be AY 2023-24. In light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Delhi High Court [supra], the impugned A.Y 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 would, therefore, fall beyond the period of six/ten assessment years as reckoned with reference to the date of recording of satisfaction by the assessing officer of the non-searched person. We therefore, have no hesitation in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) and quashing the impugned assessment order having been made without legal and valid assumption of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the assessment of the A.Ys under consideration for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 are considered as beyond the block period of 10 assessment years and hence invalid. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 3693 & 3694/DEL/ /2025 Co No. 136 & 137/DEL/2025…Transline Technologies [A.Y 2011-12 & 2012-13] Page 8 of 9 13. Since we have quashed the assessment order, we do not find it necessary to dwell into the merits of the case. 14. In the result, appeals of Revenue in ITA No.3693/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2011-12] and ITA No. 3694/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2012-13] stands dismissed. The Assessee’s Cross Objections in CO No. 36/DEL/2025 and CO No. 37/DEL/2025 are allowed The order is pronounced in the open court on 07.11.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [YOGESH KUMAR US] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 07th November, 2025. VL/ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) Asst. Registrar, 5. DR ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 3693 & 3694/DEL/ /2025 Co No. 136 & 137/DEL/2025…Transline Technologies [A.Y 2011-12 & 2012-13] Page 9 of 9 Sl No. PARTICULARS DATES 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 2. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictation Member 3. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the other Member 4. Date on which the approved draft Tribunal Order comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 5. Date on which the fair Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 6. Date on which the signed order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S 7. Date on which the final Tribunal Order is uploaded by the Sr. P.S./P.S. on official website 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk alongwith Tribunal Order 9. Date of killing off the disposed of files on the judiSIS portal of ITAT by the Bench Clerks 10. Date on which the file goes to the Supervisor (Judicial) 11. The date on which the file goes for xerox 12. The date on which the file goes for endorsement 13. The date on which the file goes to the Superintendent for checking 14. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the Tribunal order 15. Date on which the file goes to the dispatch section 16. Date of Dispatch of the Order Printed from counselvise.com "