Writ petitions challenged Section 153C income tax notices issued beyond the permissible assessment window. Relying on its Ojjus Medicare ruling on computation of the block period from receipt of seized materials, the court quashed the impugned notices and all consequential proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~59 & 60
MODICARE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain & Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advs.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 14 NEW DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar & Ms. Easha, Advs.
60
MODICARE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain & Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advs.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 14 NEW DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Ms. Hemlata Rawat & Mr. Virendra Kumar Saksena, JSCs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
O R D E R % 13.05.2024
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 15/05/2024 at 12:02:15
consequential proceedings.
“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.
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
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 15/05/2024 at 12:02:15
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.
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.”
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
MAY 13, 2024/neha
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 15/05/2024 at 12:02:15
1 issue framed by the court
Whether notices under Section 153C for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 were barred by the ten-year limitation period given the Satisfaction Note dated 20 October 2022.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. LtdRelied on¶3
[2024 SCC OnLine Del 2439] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Modicare Limited
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 14 New Delhi
Yashwant Varma
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
