Reena Mittal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that since assessee is person other than searched person, assessment should have been made under section 153C of the Income Tax Act instead of regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Income tax Act. Accordingly, assessment made u/s. 143(3) is liable to be quashed.
Facts- The present appeal is preferred by the assessee. The assessee’s has mainly contended that since the assessment was made pursuant to search and based on materials found in the course of search, the assessment in the case of the Assessee being the person other than the searched person should have been made u/s 153C of the Act instead of regular assessment u/s 143(3) and therefore the assessment made u/s 143(3) is void ab initio.
Conclusion- Coordinate Tribunal in the case of Arti Dhall vs. DCIT has held that in the case on hand undoubtedly the satisfaction note u/s 153C of the Act was recorded on 27.09.2022 which falls in the previous year 2022-23 relevant to the AY 2023-24. Therefore, having regard to the first proviso to section 153C, AY 2023-24 relevant to the FY 2022-23 would be the year of search and therefore the Assessing Officer was required to complete the assessment for six assessment years prior to year of search AY 2023-24 u/s 153C for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23. However, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment for AY 2021-22 u/s 143(3) which is not permissible under law. In the circumstances, we hold that the regular assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act despite recording of satisfaction note u/s 153C from Assessing Officer of searched person and also as the AO of the person other than the searched person, is not permissible in law. Thus, we hold that the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2021-22 is void ab initio and the same is hereby quashed. The additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
