COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 versus JASJIT SINGH

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 706 · Decided: 26-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 706 : 2023 INSC 882
706
CASE DETAILS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14
v.
JASJIT SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 6566 of 2023)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: In search and seizure, the Assessing Oﬃ  cer 
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 ﬁ le returns, commenced only from the date the 
materials were forwarded to their A.Os.
Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.153C – The Revenue urged that the date 
(relatable to the period for which six years returns were to be ﬁ led 
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 conﬁ ned 
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 
ﬁ led by the third party (whose premises are not searched and in respect 
of whom the speciﬁ c 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 
707
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
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6566 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2015 of the High Court of 
Delhi at New Delhi in ITA No.337 of 2015.
With
Civil Appeal Nos.6567, 6568 and 6589 of 2023.
Appearances:
N Venkatraman, A.S.G., Raj Bahadur Yadav, V C Bharathi, A K Kaul, 
Priyanka Das, Sabrish Subramanium, Rupesh Kumar, Nisha Bagchi, Anmol 
Chandan, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., K. R. Manjani, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Kailash J. 
Kashyap, K. L. Janjani, Ms. Kavita Jha, Ajay Vohra, Udit Naresh, Akash 
Shukla, Advs. for the Respondent.
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 
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 v. JASJIT SINGH
708 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IT Act’). Though the facts in 
each appeal diﬀ er, substantially for the purposes of clarity and completeness 
the facts in the appeal arising from SLP (C) No.6644 of 2016 are taken into 
account. The facts are that search and seizure proceedings were conducted 
in the premises of one M/s KOUTON Group on 19.02.2009.  In the course 
of scrutiny, the concerned Assessing Oﬃ  cer (A.O.) having jurisdiction after 
issuing notice under Section 154 A of the IT Act, to the searched party, 
was of the opinion that some documents and material “belonging to” the 
respondents(s) assessee, were involved.  Therefore, notices were issued 
to them by the AO having jurisdiction over their assessments on diﬀ erent 
dates (i.e. 25.02.2010 in [SLP(C) No. 6644 of 2016 & SLP(C)No. 14447 of 
2016], 12.03.2009 in [SLP(C)No. 23621 of 2016] and 11.08.2014 [SLP(C) 
Diary No(s). 30718/2023]).
4.  Notice was issued by the concerned jurisdictional A.Os. to the said 
assessees who contended that the period for which they were required to ﬁ le 
returns, commenced only from the date the materials were fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.