Ita/704/2018 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri. Gali Janardhana Reddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31 DAY OF MARCH, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ITA No.704 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) CENTRAL CIRCLE, C. R. BUILDING CENTRAL CIRCLE, C. R. BUILDING QUEEN’S ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), C. R. BUILDING QUEEN’S ROAD, BENGALUR – 560 001. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), C. R. BUILDING QUEEN’S ROAD, BENGALUR – 560 001. (BY SRI. ARAVIND .K .V- ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND: SHRI GALI JANARDHANA REDDY NO.8, ASHOKNAGAR HAVAMABAVI, SURUGUPPA ROAD BELLARY – 583 101, PAN:AFBPR 9737D. (BY SRI. MAYANK JAIN - ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO: i)FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED IN THE APPEAL AND ALLOW THE APPEAL; ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN M.P.NO.149/BANG/2016 (IN ITA NO.1450/BANG/2014) DATED 06.03.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 1(3), BENGALURU; AND iii) SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1450/BANG/2014 DATED 17.10.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THIS ITA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.02.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, K.SOMASHEKAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short “ITAT”) in M.P.No.149/Bang/2016 (in ITA No.1450/Bang/2014) dated 06.03.2018 for assessment year 2011-2012 vide Annexure-D. The prayer sought for in this appeal is to set aside the said order by allowing the appeal and confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and thereby confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(3), Bengaluru and with a further prayer seeking to set-aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.1450/Bang/2014 dated 17.10.2016 for the assessment year 2011-12 vide Annexure-C. 2. Heard learned standing counsel Sri K.V.Arvind for appellant / revenue and the learned counsel Shri Mayank Jain for respondent/assessee. Perused the order passed by the Deputy commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore in respect of assessment order and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- VI, Bangalore dated 25.08.2014. 3.The factual matrix of this appeal are as under: It is stated in the statement of fact that under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out in the case of Sri K.Raghuvacharyulu, Smt.Renuka.G and others on 25.10.2010 certain documents belonging to the assessee was found and seized. Consequently, based on the said evidence, the assessing officer of the searched person recorded the satisfaction note in the case of Gali Janardhan Reddy and issued notice under Section 153C for the assessment year 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 and notice under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2011-2012. It is further stated that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the Act were concluded for the assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 and under Section 144 read with Section 153D for the assessment year 2011-12 being the year of search vide orders dated 31.03.2013 determining assessed income of Rs.45,96,38,679/-. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore. Wherein the said authority passed consolidated order for the above assessment years confirmed the orders passed by the assessing officer for the year under consideration and also search assessment orders for other assessment years. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal knocked down the assessment proceedings for all seven assessment years on the technical grounds raised by the assessee on validity of assessment order vide order in ITAT No.1451 to 1457 dated 18.10.2016. The Tribunal held that there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer of the searched person (153A case) in the file of searched person. Therefore, the Tribunal held that mere recording of satisfaction in the file of the assessee would not suffice. The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders framed for all 7 assessment years by relying on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the cased of M/s.Gopi Apartments and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Calcutta Knitwears. After taking into account the best remedial action, since the time was available to reopen the assessment for the year 2010-11, the proceedings were reopened by issuance of notice under Section 148 and subsequently, the assessment proceedings were concluded by passing an order of reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 by bringing to tax all the income which formed part of total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section 143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under Section 144 read with Section 153D on similar ground that no satisfaction note was recorded by the assessing officer of the searched persons which is factually not applicable to the proceedings for the year under consideration. 4. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Tribunal, the Revenue filed a miscellaneous petition before the Tribunal for modification of its order to that extent being mistake apparent from the record. But the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s contention by solely relying on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. RRJ Securities Ltd. Hence, this appeal is preferred by the Revenue / Appellant among the grounds urged therein and seeking for intervention. In view of the grounds urged in this appeal preferred by the Revenue the following substantial questions of law would arise for response to the same: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the satisfaction note is recorded under Section 153C of the Act will be taken as the year of search for the purposes of clause (a) and (b) of sub-section 1 of Section 153A by making reference to first proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 153C despite the fact that this first proviso to sub-section 153C refers to the second proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 153A specifically and hence, is not applicable at all to all the clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section 1 of Section 153A of the Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside assessment order passed for assessment year 2011-12 by holding that there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer of the searched person (153A) in the file of the said person ignoring the intention of legislature and even when the assessing authority has passed assessment order after recording satisfaction as required under Section 153C of the Act? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that order of assessment made for the Assessment Year 2011-12 is liable to be set-aside for non-compliance of conditions under Section 153C of the Act, when the assessment order is made under the normal provisions of the Act as the same was not falling within the period of 6 years being year of search as is referred to in Section 153A/153C of the Act? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that order of assessment made for the Assessment Year 2011-12 is liable to be set-aside for non-compliance of conditions under Section 153C of the Act, when the assessment order is made under the normal provisions of the Act as the same was not falling within the period of 6 years being year of search as is referred to in Section 153A/153C of the Act? 5.It is in this contentious contention made by learned standing counsel Sri K.V.Arvind who has taken us through the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal whereby challenging under this appeal and wherein the Tribunal has erroneously given more credentiality in respect of the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in which the Court has interpreted Section 153C beyond the scope of the statute leading to results that are not in harmony with the intention of the legislature. On this premise it requires the intervention of this Court, if not would cause miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. RRJ Securities Limited relied on by the Tribunal is not applicable to the present case since it has not reached finality. 6.The second limb of the argument advanced by the learned standing counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the satisfaction note is recorded under Section 153 C of the Act will taken as the year of search for the purpose of clause(a) and (b) of sub-section 1 of Section 153A by making reference to proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 153C despite the fact that the first proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 153C refers to second proviso to sub-section 1 of section 153A specifically and therefore, not applicable at all to all the clauses (a) and (b) of subsection 1 of Section 153A of the Act. 7.It is further contended that Tribunal erroneously set-aside the assessment order passed for the year assessment year 2011-12 holding that there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer of the searched person (153A) in the file of the said person ignoring the intention of legislature and even when the assessing authority has passed assessment order after recording satisfaction as required under Section 153C of the Act. Therefore, the appellant/Revenue in this matter raising all these grounds and also substantial questions of law relating to the order passed by the Tribunal. On all these premises the learned standing counsel is emphatically submitting that intervention of this Hon’ble Court is needs, if not, certainly there shall miscarriage of justice to the Revenue being arraigned as appellant in this appeal. 8.It is further contended by counsel for the appellant keeping in view the notice under Section 142 (1) which was issued on 21.12.2012 calling for the return of income for assessment year 2011-2012. In response to the aforesaid notice, respondent/ assessee filed a letter dated 28.12.2012, which was received on 01.01.2013, in which the assessee has stated that CBI has seized all the relevant material, including the books of accounts, during September, 2011. Therefore, the assessee has expressed her inability to file the return of income. The assessee further states that she has not received any rent, interest, etc, as all her assets are placed under attachment by various authorities. These are all the observations made in the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee’s husband namely G.Janardhana Reddy is currently in judicial custody in connection with the cases filed by the CBI taking cognizance of the illegal mining activities carried out by him. This information was obtained from CBI, Hyderabad. The income relating to the assessee and her minor children as per the documents received from the CBI were reproduced. The annual relating to the assessee and her minor children as per the documents received from the CBI were reproduced. The annual income details for the year financial year 2010-11 is as under: 9.The assessee was intimated, vide office letter dated 07.01.2013 to obtain copies of relevant material which are in possession of CBI or any other agency and prepare the return of income showing the correct income earned during the financial year 2010-11. Based upon this penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271F were initiated. 10.It is observed in paragraph 5.4 of the order dated 31.03.2013 that in the previous years, the assessee has opted to club the income of minor children with her income, as the TDS deducted from the Banks are in the name of assessee. Therefore, the income of minor children are clubbed with the income of assessee and assessment is concluded as under: 11.It is further contended by the standing councel for the appellant /Revenue that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013 an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI wherein the appellate order and ground of decision was passed. The assessments under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the IT Act for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and under Section 154D read with Section 144 for the assessment year 2011-12 were completed following search and seizure action under Section 132 of the IT Act carried out in the case of Sri Madhu, Smt.Renuka, Sri Raghavacharyulu and others on 25.10.2010. 12. These are all the provision that has been appraised by the learned standing counsel Sri K.V.Arvind for the Revenue/appellant. It is stated that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C are therefore in order and in accordance with law, and the same are upheld for all the assessment years involved. It was also indicated in a tabular form in the aforesaid order. The issues involved on merits were discussed and also assigning the reasons it is relating to principles of natural justice. 13. Further in paragraph 7 of the order dated 25.08.2014 in the assessment of long term capital gains Rs.5,25,000/-, the Assessing Officer has brought on record that seized material marked as ‘RB/1’, found from the premises of Sri K.Raghavacharyulu was sale agreement dated 26.12.2005 for land at Sy.No.25A, Ganesh Nagar, measuring 4200 sq.ft as per which the appellant had sold the property in question and the capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 14.Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses for the years in question. The same was indicated in a tabular form. 15. Of these the assessing officer found that to the extent given in column (III) above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expenses claimed before the assessing officer. 16.In respect of assessment of income of Rs.48,73,08,092/- for the assessment year 2011-12 the assessing officer has made an assessment of business income of the appellant for the assessment year in question of Rs.45,96,38,679/-. The assessed income included income from salary Rs.18,18,811/- and income from interest Rs.2,42,26,434/- of the appellant and of minor daughter Ms.G.Bramhani Rs.9,90,386/- and minor son Master G.Kireeti Rs.6,33,782/- clubbed had been done by the appellant in earlier years. This is based on the information furnished by the CBI, Hyderabad, as the appellant did not file her return of income in response to the notices issued. The appellant is in appeal against the said assessment. The claim of the appellant in appeal 16.In respect of assessment of income of Rs.48,73,08,092/- for the assessment year 2011-12 the assessing officer has made an assessment of business income of the appellant for the assessment year in question of Rs.45,96,38,679/-. The assessed income included income from salary Rs.18,18,811/- and income from interest Rs.2,42,26,434/- of the appellant and of minor daughter Ms.G.Bramhani Rs.9,90,386/- and minor son Master G.Kireeti Rs.6,33,782/- clubbed had been done by the appellant in earlier years. This is based on the information furnished by the CBI, Hyderabad, as the appellant did not file her return of income in response to the notices issued. The appellant is in appeal against the said assessment. The claim of the appellant in appeal is that this income, if any, is share income from partnership firm and is not taxable. However, in absence of any further details or evidences furnished either before the assessing officer(who has provided sufficient opportunity) or during the course of appeal, the findings of the assessing officer and the inference drawn do not deserve any interference and therefore, the assessment made is in order and is upheld. In the result, the appeals for all the assessment years in equation are dismissed. This order has been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI, Bangalore. The same is also appraised by the learned standing counsel Sri K.V.Aravind by referring to the aforesaid provision and also seeks for intervention of this Court, if not, there will be miscarriage of justice to the appellant / Revenue. 17.The Assessee namely Smt.G.Lakshmi Aruna preferred appeals against the combined order of CIT(A) – VI, Bangalore dated 25.08.2014 for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘B’ Bangalore in ITA No.1451 to 1457 (Bang) 2014 (Assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12). The assessee has objected to the validity of the assessment order passed under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the IT Act. In the appeal serious objection raised with respect to initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the I.T.Act by contending that no satisfaction was recorded by the assessing officer in the case of searched person that the incriminating material found during the course of search belongs to the assessee and therefore, the assessment completed under Section 153C of the Act is illegal. Even the written submissions were accepted on 07.09.2016. These written submissions of learned DR of the revenue submitted on 07.09.2016 were reproduced in the said order. In the said order certain reliances were referred to. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears 43 taxmann.com 446 (SC), which is rendered in connection with search assessments under Chapter XIV – B (Sections 158B to 158BI) which are different provisions compared to assessments of the assessee which relate to the new search assessment procedure as contained under Sections 153A to 153C which are brought into statute w.e.f. 1.6.2003. 18.It was observed that the assessment of the person covered under provisions of Section 153A is the same as the 18.It was observed that the assessment of the person covered under provisions of Section 153A is the same as the officer of the person covered under provisions of Section 153C and, therefore, there is no issue of transmission of records. Copies of the assessment orders in the cases of Sri K.Raghavacharyalu and Smt.G.Renuka are enclosed to establish that the assessing officer i.e., Shivanand H.Kalakeri, who had done the assessments in the case of the assessee. Even the assessing officer has recorded satisfaction in the case of the assessee. The eventuiality of an assessing officer of the person covered under provisions of Section 153BC being the same as the officer of the person covered under provisions of Section 153BD is not examined by the Hon’ble Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears 43 taxmann.com 446 (SC). Therefore, in view of the fact that assessing officer of person covered under provisions of Section 153A being the same as the officer of the person covered under provisions of Section 153C and the assessing officer having recorded the satisfaction before issuing notice under Section 153C, sufficient compliance has been made by the assessing officer as required under the provisions of the statute. 19.The satisfaction note dated 14.12.2012 was reproduced by the Tribunal, In the said note, it is stated that search under Section 132 was conducted on 25.10.2010. Even in the impugned order passed by the ITAT by clubbing all the seven appeal matters. This contain instruments of partnership deed entered on 8.1.2006 between Sri B.Srinivas Reddy, Sri Parameshwara Reddy, Sri B.Sreeramulu, Sri G Karunakar Reddy, Sri Somashekar Reddy, Smt.G.Lakshmi Aruna in the name and style of Hotel Nagarjun. A search under Section 132 was also conducted on 25.10.2010 in the case of Smt.G.Renuka at ‘Rishikesh’. Wherein it is indicated that these pages contain trial balance of Gali Janardhana Reddy for the financial year 2009-10. Accordingly, being satisfied that the documents and book account belonging to Gali Janardhana Reddy have been found and seized from the searched premises of Sri Raghavacharyulu and Smt.G.Renuka. Notice was issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These are all the contentions made by learned standing counsel Sri K.V.Arvind referring to the aforesaid provisions and also various grounds. It is observed that before initiating proceedings under Section 158BD of the Act, the assessing officer who has initiated proceedings for completion of the assessments under Section 158BC of the Act should be satisfied that there is an undisclosed income which has been traced out when a person was searched under Section 132 of the books of accounts were requisitioned under Section 132A of the Act. This is in contrast to the provisions of Sections 148 of the Act where recording of reasons in writing are sine qua non. Further, it is observed that under Section 158BD the existence of cogent and demonstrative material is germane to the assessing officers’ satisfaction in concluding that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person is necessary for initiation of action under Section 158 BD. It is further observed that the conditions precedent for invoking the provisions of Section 158BD, thus, are required to be satisfied before the provisions of the said chapter are applied in relation to any person other than the person whose premises had been searched or whose documents and other assets had been requisitioned under Section 132A of the Act. It was observed that the Tribunal has not only followed the judgment in the case of M/s.Gopi Apartment (Supra) but the Tribunal has also considered and followed the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (supra) and also in the case of Manish Maheshwari as reported in 289 ITR 341. However, the ITAT has considered the grounds which are urged by the respondent/assessee and accordingly, the notice issued by the assessing officer under Section 153C of the IT Act was quashed and also quashed the assessment orders framed by the assessing officer under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the IT Act. In the line of the order rendered by the tribunal in the case of husband of the present assessee Gali Janardhan Reddy in ITA No.1444 to 1450/Bang/2014(supra), the issue having been decided in favour of the assessee it is held that the all seven assessment orders passed by the assessing officer under Section 153C read with section 144 were quashed vide order dated 17.10.2016. Further, it is also prayed to set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bengaluru in MP No.149/Bang/2016 (in ITA No.1450/Bang/2014) dated 06.03.2018 for Assessment year 2011-12 as per Annexure-D and confirm the order of Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru. The said order has been challenged under this appeal by urging various ground seeking intervention, if not, there shall be miscarriage of justice as against appellant / Revenue. The substantial questions of law requires to be considered in a given facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, learned standing counsel Sri Arvind K.V. emphatically and also forcefully submitting that impugned orders as per Annexures-C and D may be set-aside. 20.Apart from the contentions, the learned standing counsel has also filed written submission contending that the search under Section 132 was conducted on 25.10.2010 in the case of Shri. K. Raghavacharyulu. Pursuant to the search, proceedings under section 153C of the Act wee initiated in the case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2005-06to 2010-11 after recording satisfaction required under section 153C of the Act. Assessments were completed under section 153C of the Act for the Assessment Year 2005-06 to 2010-11. The Assessment Year 2011-12 being the year of search, assessment proceedings were completed under section 144 read with Section 153D of the Act. Further, it is contended that the assessment orders for Assessment Year 2005-06 to 2011-12 was subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals. The assessee being aggrieved against the order of Appellate Commissioner preferred appeals before the Tribunal for Assessment Year’s 2005-06 to 2011-12. The Tribunal by common order dated 17.10.2016 set aside the assessment orders for the Assessment Year’s 2005-06 to 2011-12 on the ground that satisfaction under section 153C of the Act was not recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person. The assessment for the Assessment Year 2011-12 was regular assessment and no proceedings were initiated under section 153C of the Act. Hence setting aside of the assessment for the assessment for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on the ground that satisfaction under section 153C of the Act was not recorded by the Assessing officer of the searched person was mistake apparent on the record. Hence, Miscellaneous Petition was filed seeking rectification of the above mistake and to consider the same on merits. The miscellaneous petition came to be rejected by the tribunal by holding that period of 6 years has to be counted from the date of handing over of the books of accounts, Assessment Year 2011-12 would be within the period of 6 assessment years, hence conditions required under Section 153C of the Act are required to be satisfied. 21.It is further contended that Section 153A(1)(b) of the Act provides for assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such searches conducted requisition is 21.It is further contended that Section 153A(1)(b) of the Act provides for assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such searches conducted requisition is made. The date of search relevant for the present case is 25.10.2011 and Assessment Year 2011-12 relevant to the financial year in which search was conducted is excluded for the purpose of computing six assessment years in terms of section 153A(1)(b) of the Act. First proviso to Section 153A of the Act provides for assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years. The reference to “such six assessment years” is with reference to 6 assessment years referred to in section 153A(1)(b) of the Act. Second proviso to Section 153A of the Act provides for abatement of pending assessments as on the date of search. The effect of the second proviso is that any assessment pending as on the date of search with reference to 6 assessment years referred to in 153A(1)(b) of the Act would get abated. 22.He further contends that Section 153C of the Act provides for assessment in the case of other person and issue of notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act subject to conditions contemplated therein. First proviso to section 153C of the Act refers to second proviso of section 153A(1) of the Act for determination of abatement of assessments in the case of proceedings being initiated under section 153C of the Act. The date of search for the purpose of abatement referred to in section 153A of the Act is provided to be the date of receiving the books of account or documents or asset seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. The effect of the first proviso is that the assessment pending in respect of the six assessment years referred to in section 153A(1)(b) of the Act would get abated on the date of receipt of books of accounts or documents or asset seized by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. Therefore, on a combined reading of section 153A(1)(b), first and second proviso to section 153A of the Act, Section 153C and the first proviso to Section 153C of the Act would mandate that period of six assessment years for the purposes of section 153Aand 153C of the Act is one and the same and would not alter in respect of both the provisions. The above understanding is further strengthened by the language of section 153C(1) of the Act wherein issue of notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act is provided. Even if the proceedings under section 153C of the Act are initiated, the procedure is contemplated under section 153A of the Act. In view of the above, period of six assessment years for the purpose of section 153A of the Act referred to in clause (b) to section 153A(1) of the Act would equally apply to section 153C of the Act. 23.Learned counsel for the appellant further contend that the above issue has been considered by the Delhi High Court in the case of (2012) 20 taxmann.com 214 (Delhi) SSP aviation Ltd vs DCIT Delhi wherein at para-14 held as under:- “14. Now there can be a situation when during the search conducted on one person under Section 132, some documents or valuable assets or books of account belonging to some other person, in whose case the search is not conducted, may be found. In such case, the Assessing Officer has to first be satisfied under Section 153C, which provides for the assessment of income of any other person, i.e., any other person who is not covered by the search, that the books of account or other valuable article or document belongs to the other person (person other than the one searched). He shall hand over the valuable article or books of account or document to the “14. Now there can be a situation when during the search conducted on one person under Section 132, some documents or valuable assets or books of account belonging to some other person, in whose case the search is not conducted, may be found. In such case, the Assessing Officer has to first be satisfied under Section 153C, which provides for the assessment of income of any other person, i.e., any other person who is not covered by the search, that the books of account or other valuable article or document belongs to the other person (person other than the one searched). He shall hand over the valuable article or books of account or document to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person has to proceed against him and issue notice to that person in order to assess or reassess the income of such other person in the manner contemplated by the provisions of section 153A.Now a question may arise as to the applicability of the second proviso to Section 153A in the case of the other person, in order to examine the question of pending proceedings which have to abate. In the case of the searched person, the date with reference to which the proceedings for assessment or reassessment of any assessment year within the period of the six assessment years shall abate, is the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or the requisition under Section 132A. For instance, in the present case, with reference to the Puri Group of Companies, such date will be 5.1.2009. However, in the case of the other person, which in the present case is the petitioner herein, such date will be the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisition by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. In the case of the other person, the question of pendency and abatement of the proceedings of assessment or reassessment to the six assessment years will be examined with reference to such date.” 24.He further contends that the reliance of the assessee on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ securities Ltd is incorrect and the same has not dealt with the proposition canvassed above. The Delhi High Court has not considered the limited purpose of second proviso to section 153A and first proviso to section 153C of the Act, which mandates the point of abatement with respect to period of six assessment years referred to in section 153A(21)(b) of the Act. Further the Delhi High Court has not considered the implication of reference made to section 153A of the Act in section 153C of the Act enabling issue of notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act. Further the Delhi High Court has not specifically held that the period of six assessment years would be difference for the purpose of section 153A and 153C of the Act. Assuming without admission if the contention of the assessee that period of six years has to be recorded with reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or asset seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, the same would amount to rewriting of section 153C of the Act which is specifically disapproved by Apex Court and various High Courts. If the contention of the assessee is to be analysed, that proceedings under section 153C of the Act can be initiated on the Assessing Officer being satisfied that any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A of the Act. Thus on reading of the above provision it is clear that proceedings can be initiated under section 153C of the Act on the basis of the above material found in the searched premises belonging to the other person. Proceedings under section 153C of the Act would always be post search under section 132 of the Act in the case of the searched person. When the searched person is subjected to proceedings under section 153A of the Act with respect to 6 assessment years relevant to previous year in which search is conducted, proceedings initiated under section 153C being on the basis of the material found belonging to the other person in the course of search, the period of six assessment years cannot be after the sixth assessment years of the searched person or period after the date of search. In any event in view of the specific language of section 153A and 153C of the Act, the period of proceedings under section 153A and 153C of the Act would not and shall not cover beyond the period excluding the financial year in which search is conducted. In other words the other person under section 153C of the Act cannot be placed in a worse/disadvantage position than the person subjected to search under section 132 of the Act and where the proceedings under Section 153A of the Act being initiated. Without prejudice to the above contentions, it is submitted that the issue of the period of six assessment years for the purposes of section 153C of the Act being the fresh ground raised by the assessee in the course of hearing of the Miscellaneous Petition, the same was outside the purview of Section 254(2) of the Act which could not have been entertained. Even if such a fresh ground is to be examined by the Tribunal, the order dated 17.10.2016 requires to be recalled and the fresh ground has to be examined in the appeal on restoration. Consideration of the fresh ground in he application under section 254(2) of the Act that to especially in the application filed by the revenue would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 25.Learned counsel would further contend that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the common order dated 17.10.2016 for the Assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 would be incorrect and contrary to the stand taken by the assessee. The satisfaction recorded in terms of Section 153C of the Act as has been reproduced at para-6 of the order of the ITAT dated 17.10.2016 would clearly indicate that the satisfaction was recorded for the Assessment year 2005-06 and 2010-11. While examining the correctness of the said satisfaction, the Tribunal has set aside the order of assessment for the Assessment year 2005-06 and 2010-11 for non-compliance of conditions contemplated under Section 153C of the Act. If the finding of the Tribunal in the order against Miscellaneous Petition is to be presumed to be correct, then the finding recorded in the main order dated 17.10.2016 is incorrect. This would substantiate the inconsistent stand / reasoning of the Tribunal. On all these premises counsel for the appellant / revenue seeks to answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the revenue and consequently to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and to remit the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits. 26.In support of his contentions, learned standing counsel has facilitated the following reliances for consideration of the appeal: I) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia held as under: 26.In support of his contentions, learned standing counsel has facilitated the following reliances for consideration of the appeal: I) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia held as under: “18. A perusal of Section 153A shows that it starts with a non obstante clause relating to normal assessment procedure which is covered by Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 in respect of searches made after 31.5.2003. These Sections, the applicability of which has been excluded, relate to returns, assessment and reassessment provisions. Prior to, the introduction of these three Sections, there was Chapter XIV-B of the Act which took care of the assessment to be made in cases of search and seizure. Such an assessment was popularly known as ”block assessment” because the Chapter provided for a single assessment to be made in respect of a period of a block of ten assessment years prior to the assessment year in which the search was made. In addition to these ten assessment years, the broken period up to the date on which the search was conducted was “”also included in what was known as block period. Though a single assessment order was to be passed, the undisclosed income was to be assessed in the different assessment years to which it related. But all this had to be made in a single assessment order. The block assessment so made was independent of and in addition to the normal assessment proceedings as clarified by the Explanation below Section 158BA(2). After the introduction of the group of Sections namely, 153A to 153C, the single block assessment concept was given a go-by. Under the new Section 153A, in a case where a search is initiated under Section 132 or requisition of books of account, documents or assets is made under Section 132A after 31.5.2003, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notices calling upon the searched person to furnish returns for the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted or requisition was made. The other difference is that there is no broken period from the first day of April of the financial year in which the search took place or the requisition was made and ending with the date of search/requisition. Under Section 153A and the new scheme provided for, the AO is required to exercise the normal assessment powers in respect of the previous year in which the search took place. 19. Under the provisions of Section 153A, as we have already noticed, the Assessing Officer is bound to issue notice to the assessee to furnish returns for each assessment year falling within the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search or requisition was made. Another significant feature of this Section is that the Assessing Officer is empowered to assess or reassess the "total income" of the aforesaid years. This is a significant departure from the earlier block assessment scheme in which the block assessment roped in only the undisclosed income and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved, resulting in multiple assessments. Under Section 153A, however, the Assessing Officer has been given the power to assess or reassess the “total income” of the six assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. This means that there can be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six assessment years, in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax. undisclosed income and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved, resulting in multiple assessments. Under Section 153A, however, the Assessing Officer has been given the power to assess or reassess the “total income” of the six assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. This means that there can be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six assessment years, in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax. 20. A question may arise as to how this is sought to be achieved where an assessment order had already been passed in respect of all or any of those six assessment years, either under Section 143(1)(a) or Section 143(3) of the Act. If such an order is already in existence, having obviously been passed prior to the initiation of the search/requisition, the Assessing Officer is empowered to reopen those proceedings and reassess the total income, taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. For this purpose, the fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) of Section 153A opens. The time-limit within which the notice under Section 148 can be issued, as provided in Section 149 has also been made inapplicable by the non obstante clause. Section 151 which requires sanction to be obtained by the Assessing Officer by issue of notice to reopen the assessment under Section 148 has also been excluded in a case covered by Section 153A. The time-limit prescribed for completion of an assessment or reassessment by Section 153 has also been done away with in a case covered by Section 153A. With all the stops having been pulled out, the Assessing Officer under Section 153A has been entrusted with the duty of bringing to tax the total income of an assessee whose case is covered by Section 153A, by even making reassessments without any fetters, if need be. Therefore, it is clear even if an assessment order is passed under Section 143(1) or 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is empowered to reopen those proceedings and reassess the total income taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. After such reopening of the assessment, the Assessing Officer is empowered to assess or reassess the "total income" of the aforesaid years. The condition precedent for application of Section 153A is there should be a search under Section 132. Initiation of proceedings under Section 153A is not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during such search. The proviso to the aforesaid section makes it clear the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years. If any assessment proceedings are pending within the period of six assessment years referred to in the aforesaid sub-section on the date of initiation of the search under section 132, the said proceeding shall abate. If such proceedings are already concluded by the Assessing Officer by initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, the legal effect is the assessment proceedings and reassess the total, income, taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. He has been entrusted with the duty of bringing to tax the total income of an assessee whose case is covered by Section 153A, by even making reassessments without any fetters, This means that there can be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six assessment years, in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the Act, the legal effect is even in case where the assessment order is passed it stands reopened. In the eye of law there is no order of assessment. Re-opened means to deal with or begin with again. It means the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years. Once the assessment is reopened, the assessing authority can take note of the income disclosed in the earlier return, any undisclosed income found during search or and also any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return or which is not unearthed during the search in order to find out what is the “total income” of each year and then pas