Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Panchmukhi Management Services Pvt. Ltd

$~5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 320/2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 ..... AppellantThrough:Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr.StandingCounsel for the Revenue. versus PANCHMUKHI MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. ..... RespondentThrough:Mr. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocatewith Mr. Madhur Aggarwal,Advocate. Date of Decision: 26[th]September, 2022 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1.Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated28[th]February, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’)in ITA No. 765/Del/2018 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2.Learned counsel for the appellant states that the ITAT has erred inholding that no incriminating material was found in the search, whereas theoriginal copies of share certificates pertaining to share capital and premiumallotted to investor companies were found at the premises of issuingcompany itself instead of investor company's premises evidencing, that, theinvestor companies were bogus/accommodation entry providing entities. 3.He emphasises that in the present case, there is a live link between theadditions in question and the incriminating material. 4.A perusal of the paper book reveals that in the present case, thesatisfaction note in the case of the assessee was recorded on 29[th]January,2016, therefore the six year period prior to Assessment Year of search i..e.AY 2015-16 will be Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 in view of thejudgments of this Court in the cases of CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. [2016]380 ITR 612 and PCIT vs Sarwar Agency (P.) Ltd [2017] 397 ITR400, wherein it has been held that the proceedings by virtue of Section153C(1) of the Act would have to be in accordance with Section 153A of theAct and the reference to the date of search would have to be construed as thereference to the date of recording of satisfaction. The learned predecessorDivision Bench, in the aforementioned cases, further observed that the sixassessment years for which assessments/reassessments could be made underSection 153C of the Act would also have to be construed with reference tothe date of handing over of assets/documents to the Assessing Officer of theAssessee. 5.Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, this Court is of theopinion that in the facts of the present case, the return of income for theassessment year 2009-10 could not have been reopened. Consequently, nosubstantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal andaccordingly the same is dismissed. MANMOHAN, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2022KA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J