$ 20 * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 87/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 2 Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. versus RAJEEV BEHL Respondent Through: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER % 22.09.2017 1. This is appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) filed by Revenue against order dated 29th June, 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No. 1930/Del/2015 for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2010-11. 2. While admitting this appeal on 6th February, 2017, following question of law was framed for consideration: "Did Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fall into error in holding that additions made under Section 153C read with Section 143 (3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 in circumstances of case, were not justified and supportable in law?" 3. It may be mentioned that for AYs 2007-08 to 2012-13 (except AY 2010-11), this Court by its order dated 6th February, 2017 dismissed ITA 87/2017 Page 1 of 3 Revenue s appeals in ITA Nos. 84/2017, 85/2017 and 86/2017 which rose from same impugned order of ITAT. 4. It is pointed out by learned counsel for Respondent -Assessee that only reason why this appeal was separated from that batch of appeals involving same Assessee was that date of handing over seized documents to Assessing Officer (AO) of Assessee, date of issuance of satisfaction note, date of filing of return, date of centralising of assessments and date of final order of assessment were not clear when matter was earlier heard along with aforementioned batch of appeals. He states that as far as Assessee s assessment for this year (AY 2010-11) is concerned, time period within which assessment had to be completed expired on 31st December, 2012. On date of recording of satisfaction note, which was 8th August 2013, assessment already stood abated. search took place on 28th July 2011 and documents were handed over to AO of Assessee only on 6th November 2012. 5. In light of above facts, it is seen that as far as AY 2010-11, in terms of Section 153 C, assessement had to be completed by 31st December 2012. Even satisfaction note was prepared only on 8th August 2013. Learned counsel for Revenue submitted that although amendment to Section 153 C bringing on par period for which assessments could be reopened in case of both searched person and other person , was effective from 1st April 2017 it should be viewed as clarificatory and therefore applicable even to case on hand. ITA 87/2017 Page 2 of 3 6. Court is unable to agree with said submission. It is plain that amendment to section 153 C of Act is prospective. In present case assessment for AY 2010-11 had abated by time satisfaction note was prepared by AO of Assessee. said asseement could not be reopened in absence of tangible material of incriminating nature relevant for that AY being found. This position has been made clear in decisions of this Court in CIT v. RRJ Securities Limited (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del) and ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-28 (2017) 394 ITR 569. On facts it has been found that there was no tangible material of incriminating nature for AY in question that could justify addition made by AO. 7. Consequently question framed is answered in negative i.e. in favour of Assessee and against Revenue. appeal is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SEPTEMBER 22, 2017 srb ITA 87/2017 Page 3 of 3 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) - 2 v. Rajeev Behl