Delhi HC Rules Six‑Year Limit u/s 153C Runs From Handing Over of Seized Documents to AO, Not Search Date [Read Order]
The Court emphasised the first proviso to Section 153C, which clarifies that for a person other than the searched party, the relevant date is when the seized documents are received by the AO having jurisdiction over that person.
![Delhi HC Rules Six‑Year Limit u/s 153C Runs From Handing Over of Seized Documents to AO, Not Search Date [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/12/21/2113603-delhi-hc-rules-us-153c-runs-handing-over-seized-documents-taxscan.webp "Delhi HC Rules Six‑Year Limit u/s 153C Runs From Handing Over of Seized Documents to AO, Not Search Date [Read Order]")
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Central), Gurugram, affirming that the six‑year limit under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is governed by the date of handing over seized documents to the Assessing Officer (AO) of the assessee, not the original search date. The case arose from a search conducted on November...
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Central), Gurugram, affirming that the six‑year limit under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is governed by the date of handing over seized documents to the Assessing Officer (AO) of the assessee, not the original search date.
The case arose from a search conducted on November 2, 2017, at the premises of Prahlad Kumar Aggarwal in the case of the Rajesh Jain Group. During the search, documents relating to Deepak Kumar Aggarwal, the respondent, were seized.
These documents were subsequently handed over to the AO of Aggarwal on June 24, 2021, who recorded satisfaction under Section 153C and initiated assessment proceedings for Assessment Year (AY) 2013‑14. The assessment order dated December 31, 2022, made certain additions to Aggarwal’s income.
Aggarwal challenged the assessment before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeal in August 2024, relying on precedents including CIT v. RRJ Securities, CIT v. Singbad Technical Education Society, and PCIT v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld this decision in May 2025, holding that AY 2013‑14 fell outside the permissible six‑year window under Section 153C.
The Revenue argued before the High Court that the six years should be counted from the original search date in 2017, thereby including AY 2013‑14. However, the Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar rejected this contention.
The Court emphasised the first proviso to Section 153C, which clarifies that for a person other than the searched party, the relevant date is when the seized documents are received by the AO having jurisdiction over that person.
Since the documents were handed over on June 24, 2021, the six years covered AY 2016‑17 to 2021‑22, excluding AY 2013‑14. The Court held that the ITAT was justified in dismissing the Revenue’s appeal and that no substantial question of law arose.
The Court also noted that the Ojjus Medicare ruling is pending consideration before the Supreme Court, but reiterated that the settled position of law governs the present case.
By affirming the ITAT’s interpretation, the Delhi High Court has reinforced the principle that assessments under Section 153C must strictly adhere to statutory timelines, ensuring certainty for taxpayers and preventing Revenue from reopening years beyond the permissible scope.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
