Allowed

Shubham Aggarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 27 & Ors.

Delhi HC5 Apr 2024W.P.(C)/2651/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court quashed an income tax notice dated May 2023 under Section 153C for AY 2014-15. The Court held the notice was time-barred, applying the principle that the limitation period commences from the date books were handed over to the Assessing Officer, not the date of search.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed and notice under Section 153C dated 12 May 2023 quashed insofar as it pertains to AY 2014-15.

Shubham Aggarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~62

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2651/2024 &CM APPL. 10885/2024 (stay) SHUBHAM AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Kunal Tandon and Mr. Saurabh Dev and Mr. Karan Singh, Advs.

¶5

Versus

¶6

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 27 & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Appearance not given

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 05.04.2024

¶11

Bearing in mind the undisputed fact that the impugned notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“ Act ”] is dated 12 May 2023 and relates to Assessment Year [“ AY ”] 2014-15, it is ex facie evident that it would fall beyond the maximum window of ten years as prescribed.

¶12

The issue in any case stands answered and covered in favour of the writ petitioner in light of the judgment rendered in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central – 1 v. Ojjus Medicare Private Limited [ 2024 SCC Online Del 2439 ]. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid decision read as under:-

¶13

" D . The 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 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

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 01:06:44

¶15

nonsearched 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.

¶16

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 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.

¶17

F . 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 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."

¶18

Accordingly, and for reasons assigned in our decision in OjjusMedicaare Private Limited , we allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned notice under Section 153C of the Act dated 12 May 2023 in so far as it pertains to AY 2014-15.

¶19

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶20

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

¶21

APRIL 03, 2024/P

¶22

Shubham Aggarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 27 & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Aggarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 27 & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Itc Limited Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Prakritishri Aldaan & Anr. Vs Deepika Mittal

Delhi Jal Board Contractors Welfare Association Regd. Vs Delhi Jal Board & Anr.

Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13-1, & Ors.

Telenor South Asia Investment Pte Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Shashwata Dashora Vs Jamia Millia Islamia

Food Corporation of India Khanauri, Sangrur (Pb.) Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Bathinda (Pb.)

Meenakshi & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jas Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(1) Delhi

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-1, Agra Vs Smt Amita Garg and Ors. (Legal Heirs of Late Sh. Rakesh Kumar Garg & Ors.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, DELHI-4 Vs M/S Ifci Ltd.

Alok Agarwal and Sons -Huf Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 34-1 & Anr.

Oyo Hotels and Homes Private Limited Vs Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru & Ors.

Madhur Aggarwal Vs Income Tax Officer Delhi Tax Circle 16 1 & Ors.