Case Details Commissioner of Income Tax 14 vs Jasjit Singh

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

26 September 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 6566 of 2023

Result

Dismissed

Bench

S. Ravindra Bhat, Aravind Kumar

Citation

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 706 : 2023 INSC 882

Issue for consideration

In search and seizure, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that some documents and material “belonging to” the respondents(s) assessee, were involved – Notice was issued by the concerned jurisdictional A.Os. to the said assessees who contended that the period for which they were required to file returns, commenced only from the date the materials were forwarded to their A.Os.

Headnote

Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.153C – The Revenue urged that the date (relatable to the period for which six years returns were to be filed by the assessee) was to be from the date when the search and seizure proceedings were conducted, in respect of the main assessee u/s. 132 – The Revenue argued that the proviso [to Section 153(c)(1)] is confined in its application to the question of abatement.

Held: It is evident on a plain interpretation of Section 153C(1) that the Parliamentary intent to enact the proviso was to cater not merely to the question of abatement but also with regard to the date from which the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of which the returns were to be filed by the third party (whose premises are not searched and in respect of whom the specific provision under Section 153-C was enacted) – The revenue’s argument is insubstantial and without merit – It is quite plausible that without the kind of interpretation which SSP Aviation adopted, the A.O. seized of the materials - of the search party, u/s. 132 - would take his own time to forward the papers and materials belonging to the third party, to the concerned A.O – In that event if the date would virtually “relate back” as is sought to be contended by the revenue, (to the date of the seizure), the prejudice caused to the third party, who would be drawn into proceedings as it were unwittingly (and in many cases have no concern with it at all), is dis-proportionate. [Paras 9, 10]

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 346 ITR 177 – referred to.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT 1. Delay condoned in SLP(C) Dy. No. 30718 of 2023 and all connected petitions. 2. Special leave granted. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals were heard. 3. In this batch of appeals the revenue questions four sets of orders of the Delhi High Court, dismissing its appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IT Act’). Though the facts in each appeal differ, substantially for the purposes of clarity and completeness the facts in the appeal arising from SLP (C) No.6644 of 2016

View Subscription Plans →