Landcraft Developers Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Centralcircle 27, Delhi & Anr

$~105*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI %Date of Decision: 05.05.2025 +W.P.(C) 3796/2025 & CM APPL. 17699/2025 LANDCRAFT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE 27, DELHI & ANR. .....RespondentsThrough:Mr.ShlokChandra,Sr.StandingCounsel with Ms. Naincy Jain, Jr.SC,Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Jr. SC & Mr.Ujjwal Jain, Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA VIBHU BAKHRU, J.(Oral) 1.The Petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated19.12.2023 [impugned notice] issued under Section 153C of the Income TaxAct, 1961 [the Act] in respect of Assessment Year 2015-16. ThePetitioner states that the proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated19.12.2023 are barred by limitation, as no assessment order can now bepassed, as the time period stipulated for passing an assessment order, haselapsed. The Petitioner’s challenge rests on Section 153B of the Act, whichstipulates that an assessment order pursuant to a notice under Section 153C is required to be passed within a period of twelve months from the end of thefinancial year in which the said notice was issued. The Petitioner claims thatsince the said period has elapsed, the Revenue is required to be restrainedfrom proceeding further with the impugned notice. 2.The notice in the present petition was issued on 26.03.2025, and theRevenue was granted time to file a reply, if any, within a period of two weeksfrom the date of the said order. However, no such reply has been furnished. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue also sought further timeon 01.05.2025, which was granted and accordingly, the petition has beenlisted today. However, the Revenue has not filed its counter affidavit. 4.Briefly stated the relevant facts necessary to address the controversyinvolved in the present petition are as follows: 4.1.The Petitioner filed its return of income for AY 2015-16 on 29.11.2015,declaring a total income of ₹80,84,170/-. On 18.10.2019, a search and seizure operation were conducted under Section 132 of the Act in respect of entitiesbelonging to the Alankit Group. It is alleged that during the course of search,certain assets/documents were found, which belonged to the Petitioner orcontained information relating to the Petitioner. 5.The Assessing Officer , exercising jurisdiction over the searchedentities, recorded a satisfaction note on 22.06.2022. The relevant extract ofthe satisfaction note is set out below: “PROFORMA FOR RECORDING OF SATISFACTION ABOUTSEIZED ASSETS BELONGING TO PERSON OTHER THAN THEPERSON SEARCHED (To be filled by the Assessing Officer of searched person) 1Name of the group, if any, searched Alankit Group Signature Not Verified to a person other thanthe person searched.Therefore, this is a fitcasetoinitiateproceedingsu/s153C of the IncomeTax Act, 1961.7Assessment years involved.A.Y.2010-11to2020-21 *Copy of relevant Panchnama shall be integral part of satisfaction note. In view of the above, I am satisfied that these documents also containinformation which relates to above referred 'other person' and have abearing on the determination of its total income. Accordingly, thesedocuments are handed over to the AO of other person, for necessaryaction in the case of the above referred 'other person' under section153C of the I.T. Act 1961 for the relevant assessment years as per theseized documents.” [ emphasis added] 6.As noted above, the note clearly records that the documents andinformation relating to the Petitioner were handed over to the AO havingjurisdiction over the case of the Petitioner is correct. Thus, the documents inquestion were received by the AO of the Petitioner on 22.06.2022. In the givenfacts, the period of limitation, as stipulated under Section 153B of the Act, forpassing an assessment order is to be reckoned from the said date. [ emphasis added] 6.As noted above, the note clearly records that the documents andinformation relating to the Petitioner were handed over to the AO havingjurisdiction over the case of the Petitioner is correct. Thus, the documents inquestion were received by the AO of the Petitioner on 22.06.2022. In the givenfacts, the period of limitation, as stipulated under Section 153B of the Act, forpassing an assessment order is to be reckoned from the said date. 7.As noted above, in terms of Section 153B of the Act, the AO wasrequired to pass an assessment order within a period of twelve months fromthe end of the financial year in which the documents were received, that is,from the end of the financial year 2022-23. Therefore, the last date forcompletion of the assessment was 31.03.2024, which has since passed. Thepresent petition was listed on 26.03.2025, and admittedly, no order of assessment has been passed as of the date of filing of the petition.8.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the proceedingscommenced pursuant to the impugned notice are set aside. It is also clarifiedthat, in the event, any assessment order has been passed after filing of thispetition in respect of AY 2015-16 pursuant to the impugned notice, the samewould also stand quashed. 9.The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 5, 2025/ ‘A’ TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any