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.”
Comments
Post a Comment