Allowed

Suman Technomech Private Limited . v. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental CIRCLE-28 Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC4 Jul 2024W.P.(C)/4103/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed a Section 153C notice issued for Assessment Year 2013-14. The Court held that the notice fell outside the ten-year block period because the relevant date for computation began on the receipt of books of accounts, not the search date.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the impugned notice dated 23 January 2024 issued under Section 153C of the Act and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

Suman Technomech Private Limited . Vs Assisstant Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~24

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4103/2024 & CM APPL. 16722/2024 (Interim Stay) SUMAN TECHNOMECH PRIVATE LIMITED . .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha & Ms. Shilpa Chaudhary, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTAL CIRCLE-28 DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Mr. Parth Semiwal & Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, JSCs, Mr. Manav Goyal, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Ms. Divya Verma, Mr. Atul Sharma, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶8

¶9

O R D E R 04.07.2024

¶10

This writ petition has been preferred against the impugned notice dated 23 January 2024 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“ Act ”] for Assessment Year [“ AY ”] 2013-14 and all consequential proceedings.

¶11

Bearing in mind the undisputed fact that notice under Section 153C was dated 23 January 2024 it is ex facie evident that the aforenoted AY would fall beyond the maximum window of ten years as prescribed.

¶12

The issue in any case stands answered and covered in favour of

¶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 03/07/2025 at 07:47:33

¶15

the writ petitioner in light of the judgment rendered in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd [2024 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

¶19

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 03/07/2025 at 07:47:33

¶20

six year period and employing the expression “from the end of the assessment year” while speaking of the ten year block.”

¶21

Accordingly, and for reasons assigned in our decision in Ojjus Medicare , we allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned notice dated 23 January 2024 issued under Section 153C of the Act and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶22

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶23

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶24

JULY 4, 2024/ sk

¶25

Suman Technomech Private Limited . v. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental CIRCLE-28 Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Technomech Private Limited . v. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental CIRCLE-28 Delhi & Anr.

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

Saspal Singh Vs Punjab and Sind Bank and Anr.

Datta Power Infra Private Limited Vs Solar Energy Corporation of India & Ors.

Rekha Shetty Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Hemant Bhardwaj Vs National E Assessment Centre & Ors.

Fareed Khan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Ambica Steels Limited (through Director) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(1) Delhi & Ors.

Ambica Steels Limited (through Director) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Delhi & Ors.

Ambica Steels Limited (through Director) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Delhi & Ors.

Pr. Commissioner Oflncome Tax -12 Vs Smt. Sudha Loyalka

Ramakant HUF Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi - 43 & Anr.

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle 25(1), New Delhi

Sarvesh Tyagi Vs Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Saroj Gupta Legal Heir of Late Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 25 Delhi & Anr.

Saroj Gupta -Legal Heir of Late Pawan Kumar Gupta- Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 25 Delhi & Anr.