Allowed

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal v. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC16 May 2024W.P.(C)/287/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition against a Section 153C notice dated June 29, 2022, for assessment years 2012-13 and subsequent years, holding it issued beyond the ten-year window. The court relied on Ojjus Medicare, applying the principle that the ten-year block under Section 153C is reckoned from the receipt of books of accounts rather than the search date.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 29 June 2022 issued under Section 153C and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal Vs… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~24

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 287/2024 & CM APPL. 1274/2024

¶4

CHUKNOO SECURITIES LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SANJEEV AGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Ankit Agarwal, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28 DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Shlok Chandra, Sr.SC with Ms.Madhavi Shukla, Jr.SC, Ms.Priya Sarkar, Jr.SC and Mr.Sudarshan Roy, Adv.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R % 16.05.2024

¶10

This writ petition has been preferred against the impugned notice dated 29 June 2022 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“ Act ”] for Assessment Years’ [“ AY ”] 2012-2013 and all consequential proceedings.

¶11

Bearing in mind the undisputed fact that the the notice referrable to Section 153C is dated 29 June 2022, it is ex facie evident that the aforenoted AY would fall beyond the maximum window of ten years as prescribed under the aforenoted provision.

¶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-1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd [2024

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 21/05/2024 at 11:45:42

¶15

SCC OnLine Del 2439]. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid decision read as under:-

¶16

“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 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 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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.”

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 21/05/2024 at 11:45:42

¶21

Accordingly, and for reasons assigned in our decision in Ojjus Medicare , we allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned notice dated 29 June 2022 issued under Section 153C of the Act and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶22

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶23

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

¶24

MAY 16, 2024/MJ

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 21/05/2024 at 11:45:42

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal v. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal v. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 Delhi & 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

Ram Chander Jain Vs Union of India and Anr.

Firoz Ahmad Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Dhan Raj Dhwan (as Guardian of Devansh Dhawan) Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi Directorate of Education & Anr.

Softech International Private Limited Vs Union of India through Secretary & Ors.

Sabrin Khatun Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Umesh Kumar Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Sh. Mahesh Kapoor Vs Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation & Ors.

Ornate Buildtech Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 19-1, Delhi & Anr.

Suresh Chand Garg Vs Asstt. Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Circle 43(1), & Ors.

Sushen Mohan Gupta Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 15, Delhi & Anr.

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 & Ors.

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 & Ors.

Pt Bukaka Teknik Utama Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Delhi - 2