{"id":282,"date":"2023-05-24T17:17:36","date_gmt":"2023-05-24T17:17:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282"},"modified":"2023-08-01T07:30:35","modified_gmt":"2023-08-01T07:30:35","slug":"supreme-court-interprets-section-153a-it-act-1961-correctly-provides-remedy-to-the-revenue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Interprets Section 153A, IT Act, 1961 Correctly & Provides \u2018Remedy\u2019 to the Revenue\u00a0\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

Introduction <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On 24 April 2023, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell<\/em> case[1]<\/sup><\/a> interpreted the scope of Section 153A, IT Act, 1961. The specific question before the Supreme Court was: whether the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to make assessment in respect of completed\/unabated assessment is confined only to incriminating material found during a search or requisition under Sections 132 and 132A? The Supreme Court – relying on the Delhi High Court\u2019s judgment – narrowly interpreted the Assessing Officer\u2019s jurisdiction and answered the above question in the affirmative. The Supreme Court held that the Assessing Officer could not make additions to the completed assessment based on other material on record if no incriminating material was found during the search or requisition.     <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arguments About the Scope of Section 153A<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To begin with, it is important to understand the elements of Section 153A, IT Act, 1961 which required consideration by the Supreme Court.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 153A(1) states that in case of a person where a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Section 132A, the Assessing Officer shall issue a notice to the person requiring him to furnish a return for the six assessment years immediately preceding the preceding year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made. And the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Second Proviso, is worth citing in full: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Provided further <\/em><\/strong>that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in this sub-section pending<\/u> on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate :<\/em>   <\/em>(emphasis added)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Second Proviso cited above mentions that only the pending assessments or reassessments on the date of initiation of search or requisition shall stand abated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The State contended that even if no incriminating material is found during the search or requisition then additions to completed assessments could also be made by the Assessing Officer in respect of other material on record. The primary basis of the State\u2019s argument was that the mandate of the Assessing Officer under Section 153A is with respect to \u2018total income\u2019 read with Section 4, IT Act, 1961, i.e., the charging provision under the statute which provides for assessment of total income. And if the Assessing Officer is allowed to only assess \u2018partial income\u2019 it would not be in accordance with the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, the State argued that the Assessing Officer is authorized to make additions to completed assessments based on other material even if no new material was found during the search or requisition.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The assessees, on the other hand, argued for a contextual interpretation of the term \u2018income\u2019 and Section 153A, IT Act, 1961. The assesses argued that the purpose of Section 153A is to discover information through search or requisition which could not ordinarily discovered. And, if no incriminating material is found after such search or requisition there is no justification for opening completed assessments by using other material on record. The assessees also had the strength of various High Court judgments which had taken a similar view.        <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Delhi High Court\u2019s Interpretation Approved by the Supreme Court<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Various High Courts had expressed differing opinions on the issue before the Supreme Court. One such judgment which was the subject of appeal was the Delhi High Court\u2019s judgment in Kabul Chawla<\/em> case.[2]<\/sup><\/a> The Delhi High Court through a well-reasoned judgment in Kabul Chawla<\/em> case, had laid down the scope of Section 153A in clear terms. The High Court had observed that once search under Section 132 takes place, a notice is mandatorily issued to the person requiring him to file returns for six assessment years preceding the previous year. And the Assessing Officer has the power to assess or reassess the total income for each of the said six years in separate assessment orders for six years. It added that while Section 153A does not expressly state that additions to assessment should be strictly based on evidence found during search, it does not mean that assessment \u2018can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material.\u2019 (para 37) The Delhi High Court had clarified that in the absence of any incriminating material, the abated\/completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made under Section 153A. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Delhi High Court had made it amply clear that completed assessments could be interfered by the Assessing Officer under Section 153A only on the basis of incriminating material found during search or requisition and not by relying on material already disclosed or known in the course of original assessment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court expressed \u2018complete agreement\u2019 with the observations of the Delhi High Court. (para 8) In doing so, the Supreme Court added its own reasons:  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, it adopted a purposive interpretation of Section 153A to observe that the very purpose of search and seizure \u2013 which triggers Section 153A – is detection of undisclosed income through extraordinary powers. Thus, the foundation for search assessments under Section 153A is incriminating material discovered during such search or seizure.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, it again referred to legislative intent behind the Second Proviso and observed that only pending assessments\/reassessments for the six assessment years abate on initiation of search or requisition. Also referred to Section 153A(2) which states that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment under Section 153A(1) is annulled in appeal or any legal proceeding, then the assessment or reassessment which abated under the Second Proviso shall revive. Referring to the afore-stated provisions, it observed \u2018the intention does not seem to be to re-open the completed\/unabated assessments, unless any incriminating material is found with respect to concerned assessment year falling within last six years preceding the search.\u2019 (para 11)  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, it stated that if the Revenue Department\u2019s argument that completed assessments can be re-opened even if no incriminating material is found during the search or seizure, is accepted it would lead to two assessments order which was impermissible under the law and would make the Second Proviso redundant. This observation is pertinent because Section 153A replaced the previous provision Section 158BA to do away with the concept of parallel assessments for undisclosed income. And, under Section 153A the undisclosed income is taxed at the same rate as the rest of income, as opposed to the previous regime where undisclosed income was tax at a higher rate thereby necessitating two assessments. And IT Act, 1961 no longer recognises the concept of parallel assessments.     <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Remedy\u2019 to the Revenue <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Delhi High Court\u2019s interpretation of Section 153A, IT Act, 1961 was supported by adequate and articulate reasoning and the Supreme Court\u2019s decision to that extent was also well-reasoned. The Supreme Court, however, made another observation that \u2018the Revenue cannot be left with no remedy.\u2019 (para 11) The Supreme Court added that even in case of block assessments under Section 153A where no incriminating material is found during a search, \u2018the power of the Revenue to have the reassessment under section 147\/148 of the Act has to be saved ..\u2019. (para 11) Subject to the fulfilment of the conditions under Sections 147\/148, the Supreme Court expressly saved the Revenue Department\u2019s power to re-open assessments. The need to save the powers under Section 147\/148 was not necessary and provide a \u2018remedy\u2019 to the Revenue seems like a balancing act on the part of the Supreme Court. And not the least, the concept of not providing a remedy to Revenue when its interpretation of the impugned provision was not upheld has no jurisprudential basis.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyhow the implications of the Supreme Court\u2019s these observations are unclear, the Revenue Department filed a Miscellaneous Application, which inter alia sough clarification of the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment vis-\u00e0-vis Section 150, IT Act, 1961 which deals with limitation period for assessments\/reassessments. At the time of writing, the Supreme Court has directed the Revenue Department to file a review petition. The review will lead to another set of arguments because of the Supreme Court\u2019s unnecessary \u2018remedy\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> Principal CIT v Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd<\/em> 2023 SCC OnLine SC 481. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> CIT, Central-III v Kabul Chawla<\/em> (2015) 61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi).  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction  On 24 April 2023, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell case[1] interpreted the scope of Section 153A, IT Act, 1961. The specific question before the Supreme Court was: whether the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to make assessment in respect of completed\/unabated assessment is confined only to incriminating material found during a search or … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":283,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"cybocfi_hide_featured_image":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[52,39,18,25,94,50,51,49,32],"class_list":["post-282","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-direct-tax","tag-abated-assessment","tag-assessment","tag-delhi-high-court","tag-it-act-1961","tag-ravpratapsingh","tag-remedy","tag-review","tag-section-153a","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court Interprets Section 153A, IT Act, 1961 Correctly & Provides \u2018Remedy\u2019 to the Revenue\u00a0\u00a0 - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court Interprets Section 153A, IT Act, 1961 Correctly & Provides \u2018Remedy\u2019 to the Revenue\u00a0\u00a0 - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Introduction  On 24 April 2023, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell case[1] interpreted the scope of Section 153A, IT Act, 1961. The specific question before the Supreme Court was: whether the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to make assessment in respect of completed\/unabated assessment is confined only to incriminating material found during a search or ... Read more\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-05-24T17:17:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-08-01T07:30:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Rav Singh\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Rav Singh\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court Interprets Section 153A, IT Act, 1961 Correctly & Provides \u2018Remedy\u2019 to the Revenue\u00a0\u00a0 - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/Provides-Remedy-to-Revenue-pdf.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-05-24T17:17:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-08-01T07:30:35+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/3cf683f6a55fd613e1bc28173c8e0917\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/Provides-Remedy-to-Revenue-pdf.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/Provides-Remedy-to-Revenue-pdf.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court Interprets Section 153A, IT Act, 1961 Correctly & Provides \u2018Remedy\u2019 to the Revenue\u00a0\u00a0\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/\",\"name\":\"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\",\"description\":\"Analyse. Discuss. Learn.\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/3cf683f6a55fd613e1bc28173c8e0917\",\"name\":\"Rav Singh\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Rav Singh\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.ravsingh.in\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?author=2\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court Interprets Section 153A, IT Act, 1961 Correctly & Provides \u2018Remedy\u2019 to the Revenue\u00a0\u00a0 - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court Interprets Section 153A, IT Act, 1961 Correctly & Provides \u2018Remedy\u2019 to the Revenue\u00a0\u00a0 - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","og_description":"Introduction  On 24 April 2023, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell case[1] interpreted the scope of Section 153A, IT Act, 1961. The specific question before the Supreme Court was: whether the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to make assessment in respect of completed\/unabated assessment is confined only to incriminating material found during a search or ... Read more","og_url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282","og_site_name":"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","article_published_time":"2023-05-24T17:17:36+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-08-01T07:30:35+00:00","author":"Rav Singh","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Rav Singh","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282","url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282","name":"Supreme Court Interprets Section 153A, IT Act, 1961 Correctly & Provides \u2018Remedy\u2019 to the Revenue\u00a0\u00a0 - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/Provides-Remedy-to-Revenue-pdf.jpg","datePublished":"2023-05-24T17:17:36+00:00","dateModified":"2023-08-01T07:30:35+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/3cf683f6a55fd613e1bc28173c8e0917"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/Provides-Remedy-to-Revenue-pdf.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/Provides-Remedy-to-Revenue-pdf.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=282#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court Interprets Section 153A, IT Act, 1961 Correctly & Provides \u2018Remedy\u2019 to the Revenue\u00a0\u00a0"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website","url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/","name":"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","description":"Analyse. Discuss. Learn.","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/3cf683f6a55fd613e1bc28173c8e0917","name":"Rav Singh","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Rav Singh"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.ravsingh.in\/"],"url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?author=2"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=282"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":284,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282\/revisions\/284"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/283"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}