The Learned Itat Allowed The Cross Objections And Consequentlydismissed The Appeal Preferred By The Revenue v. Rrj Securities Ltd.:(2016) 380 Itr 612 And In Commissioner Of Income Tax V. Jasjit Singh:(2023) 458 Itr 437

$~3 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 558/2024 & CM No.67007/2024THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3.....AppellantThrough:Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Mr. Anant Mann& Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advs.Versus ROLLAND ENTERPRISES LTD. .....RespondentThrough:Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Vaibhav Kulkarni & Mr. HimanshuAggarwal, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMAO R D E R %02.12.2024 1.The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) impugning a common order dated29.12.2023 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the learned IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ITAT) in ITA Nos.3348/Del/2015 &3353/Del/2015 and cross objections being CO. Nos.352/Del/2015 &357/Del/2015. The present appeal is confined to the impugned order insofaras it relates to ITA Nos.3348/Del/2015 and CO. No.352/Del/2015, whichrelate to assessment year (AY) 2007-08. 2.The learned ITAT allowed the Assessee’s cross objections and heldthat the assessments framed for AY 2007-08 was invalid. 3.The Revenue has projected the following questions of law forconsideration of this court: “2.1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Ld. ITAT has erred in law in holding thatcase, the Ld. ITAT has erred in law in holding that assessment made for the year under consideration areoutside the scope of section 153C of the Act andtreated the assessment as voids ab initio, even whenassessing officer of searched person and that of theother person is the same and proviso to section 153C isconfirmedinitsapplicationtothequestionofabatement and does not cater with regard to date fromwhich six years period was to be reckoned?2.2Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, Ld. ITAT has erred by relying on the case lawswherein the facts of the case are different from thiscase? 2.3Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Ld. ITAT has erred by not appreciating thefact that the AO of the searched person and the AO ofthe Assessee are same especially when the AO wassatisfied that the documents seized from the person inrespect to whom the search was conducted belong tothe otherperson andconsequentlyrecordedthesatisfaction note date 18.11.2013?”case, the Ld. ITAT has erred by not appreciating thefact that the AO of the searched person and the AO ofthe Assessee are same especially when the AO wassatisfied that the documents seized from the person inrespect to whom the search was conducted belong tothe otherperson andconsequentlyrecordedthesatisfaction note date 18.11.2013?” 4.The relevant context in which the aforesaid questions of law arise arebriefly narrated as under: 4.1A search was conducted on 22.03.2012 on M/s Focus Energy Groupof companies. During the search proceedings, certain material was found,which contained information pertaining to the Assessee. Thus, the AssessingOfficer (AO) of the searched person prepared a satisfaction note dated18.11.2013 for the purposes of invoking Section 153C of the Act. 4.2The AO framed the assessment under Section 153C/144 of the Act inrespect of AY 2007-08. The Assessee appealed the assessment order beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter the CIT(A)], whichwas allowed. 4.3Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ITAT).The Assessee alsofiled cross objections in the said appeal, inter alia, claiming that theassessments framed under Section 153C of the Act in respect of the AY2007-08 were beyond the period of six years as stipulated under Section153C of the Act. 5.The learned ITAT allowed the cross objections and consequentlydismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue. 4.2The AO framed the assessment under Section 153C/144 of the Act inrespect of AY 2007-08. The Assessee appealed the assessment order beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter the CIT(A)], whichwas allowed. 4.3Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ITAT).The Assessee alsofiled cross objections in the said appeal, inter alia, claiming that theassessments framed under Section 153C of the Act in respect of the AY2007-08 were beyond the period of six years as stipulated under Section153C of the Act. 5.The learned ITAT allowed the cross objections and consequentlydismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue. 6.The question whether the assessment in respect of the AY 2007-08could be reopened under Section 153C of the Act on the basis of asatisfaction note dated 18.11.2013 is no longer res integra.The date of thesatisfaction note is required to be construed as the date of the search forimputing the provisions for calculating the block period of six years as heldby this court in Commissioner of Income Tax-7 v. RRJ Securities Ltd.:(2016) 380 ITR 612 and in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jasjit Singh:(2023) 458 ITR 437. 7.In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the decision of thelearned ITAT in allowing the cross objections preferred by the Assessee anddismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. 8.No substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal. The sameis dismissed. VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 02, 2024‘gsr’ SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any