Allowed

Rajbir Singh Makhni v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Delhi HC10 May 2024W.P.(C)/6970/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed three writ petitions filed by Rajbir Singh Makhni against notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court quashed the notices and consequential proceedings, ruling that the assessment years fell beyond the statutory limitation window as computation of the block must start from the date of receipt of books of accounts.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were allowed and the impugned notices dated 28 December 2021 issued under Section 153C and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

Rajbir Singh Makhni Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~49, 50 & 56

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6970/2023 RAJBIR SINGH MAKHNI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr.SC with Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Mr. Deepesh Jain and Mr. Samarth Chaudhari, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

¶6

	Through:	..... Respondent Mr. Anurag Ojha, Sr.SC with Ms. Hemlata Rawat and Mr. Virendra Kumar Saksena, Jr.SCs.
50
+	W.P.(C) 6977/2023
	RAJBIR SINGH MAKHNI	..... Petitioner
	Through:	Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr.SC with Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Mr. Deepesh Jain and Mr. Samarth Chaudhari, Advs.
	versus

¶7

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

¶8

..... Respondent

¶9

Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, Sr.SC with Ms. Hemlata Rawat and Mr. Virendra Kumar Saksena, Jr.SCs.

¶10

56 + W.P.(C) 7747/2023 RAJBIR SINGH MAKHNI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr.SC with

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

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 12:00:47

¶13

Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Mr. Deepesh Jain and Mr. Samarth Chaudhari, Advs.

¶14

versus

¶15

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

¶16

..... Respondent

¶17

Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, Sr.SC with Ms. Hemlata Rawat and Mr. Virendra Kumar Saksena, Jr.SCs.

¶18

CORAM:

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R % 10.05.2024

¶21

These writ petitions have been preferred against the impugned notices dated 28 December 2021 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“ Act ”] for Assessment Years’ [“ AYs’ ”] 201011 [W.P.(C) 6977/2023], 2011-12 [W.P.(C) 6970/2023], 2012-13 [W.P.(C) 7747/2023] and all consequential proceedings.

¶22

Bearing in mind the undisputed fact that the Satisfaction Note recorded by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer [“ AO ”] of the petitioner was dated 24 December 2021, it is ex facie evident that the aforenoted AYs’ would fall beyond the maximum window of ten years as prescribed under the aforenoted provision.

¶23

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 SCC OnLine Del 2439]. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 12:00:47

¶26

decision read as under:-

¶27

“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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.”

¶30

Accordingly, and for reasons assigned in our decision in Ojjus

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 12:00:47

¶33

Medicare , we allow the instant writ petitions and quash the impugned notices dated 28 December 2021 issued under Section 153C of the Act and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶34

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶35

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

¶36

MAY 10, 2024/p

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 12:00:47

Rajbir Singh Makhni v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajbir Singh Makhni v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

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

Sanjiv Kumar Vashist Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Trio Security and Intelligence Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh. Sunil Kumar & Anr.

National Federaion of Farmers Procurement Processing & Retailing Cooperativs of India Ltd. Nacop Vs Union of India & Ors. & Anr.

Lord Krishna Tradexim LLP (Pan AABCL4428K) (as Successor in Interest of Lord Krishna Tradexim (P) L Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(1) Delhi & Ors.

Chandershehar Malhotra Vs North Delhi Power Ltd.

Naresh Mittal Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 43(6) Delhi & Ors.

Neelkanth Steel and Alloys Vs Asstt. Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Circle 49(1), & Ors.

Maa Jhandewali Co-Operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Vs the Registrar Co-Operative Societies, & Ors.

Genins India Insurance Tpa Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

M/S. Ssa International Ltd. Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central CIRCLE-7

Ridgeview Construction (P) Ltd. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Pr Commissioner of Income Delhi -1 Vs M/S. Advance India Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Kiran Agarwal Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 34-1, Delhi & Anr.

Taxila Gurukul Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 25.1, New Delhi. & Ors.