Case Law (SC) -- In the case of the person other than the search person i.e for section 153C, the date with reference to which the proceedings for assessment or reassessment or assessment year within the period of the six assessment years shall abate will be the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisition by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person.

 Issue: --

1.       Whether under the Section 153C, the date with reference to which the proceedings for assessment or reassessment of any assessment year within the period of the six assessment years shall abate was to be from the date when the search and seizure proceedings were conducted, in respect of the main assessee u/s 132 or the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisition by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person?

2.       Whether the proviso to Section 153(c)(1) is confined in its application to the question of abatement or for the date from which the six year period was to be reckoned?

 

Holding;-  

“9.      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 153-C was enacted. The revenue argued that the proviso [to Section 153(c)(1)] is confined in its application to the question of abatement.

10. This Court is of the opinion that the revenue’s argument is insubstantial and without merit. It is quite plausible that without the kind of interpretation which SSP Aviation [(2012) 346 ITR 177] adopted, the A.O. seized of the materials – of the search party, under Section 132 – would take his own time to forward the papers and materials belonging to the third party, to the concerned A.O. In that event if the date would virtually “relate back” as is sought to be contended by the revenue, (to the date of the seizure), the prejudice caused to the third party, who would be drawn into 6 proceedings as it were unwittingly (and in many cases have no concern with it at all), is dis-proportionate. For instance, if the papers are in fact assigned under Section 153-C after a period of four years, the third party assessee’s prejudice is writ large as it would have to virtually preserve the records for at latest 10 years which is not the requirement in law. Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be attributed to Parliament. On the other hand, a plain reading of Section 153-C supports the interpretation which this Court adopts.”

CIT v. Jasjit Singh [2023INSC882] dated 26.09.2023

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Case law (SC) -- SLP dismissed against order of High Court where notice u/s 148 was quashed stating that notice u/s 148 must comply with the Faceless Scheme regardless of the Assessee being a NRI/Indian Citizen.

Case law (SC) - Once the Resolution Plan is approved by the NCLT, All the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, if not a part of the Resolution Plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings could be continued in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31 of the IB Code.

Case Law (SC) - Where an assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80HHC as well as 80IA, the deductions have to be computed separately, but the total deduction shall be restricted to gross total income computed under section 80IA.