I N THE I NCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL “DB” BENCH, COCHI N SHRI I NTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDI CI AL MEMBER I TA No.575/ COCH/ 2025 (Assessment Year:2015-2016)

Al Zarafa Travel & Manpower Consultants (P) Ltd.

Elias George & Co, Chartered Accountants, Hig Avenue, Gandhi Nagar, Kerala- 682020 [PAN: AAFCA4935N] …………. Appellant Vs Assistant Commissioner of I ncome Tax, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Kochi CR Building, IS Press Road, Kochi- 682018 …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Thomson Thomas For the Respondent/Department : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das Date Conclusion of hearing : 21.08.2025 Pronouncement of order : 22.09.2025

O R D E R

[

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 06/08/2025, passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal– Kochi- 3 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CI T(A)] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 05/03/2024, passed under Section 144 read with Section 153C r.w.s. 254 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-2016.

2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. The search having been conducted on 27.03.2015, the Assessing Officer has erred in law and facts in completing the assessment under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-16 as section 153C permits assessments under this section only for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted. Hence, the Assessing officer has no jurisdiction to complete the assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-16 under section 153C. Hence, the original assessment dated 28.12.2016 and the order u/s 153C r.w.s. 254 dated 05.03.2024 are bad at law as the Assessing officer has no jurisdiction to invoke section

153C.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the mention in the assessment order that the assessment is completed u/s 153C is an error which is protected by section 292B of the Income Tax Act.

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the assessment of the gross receipts as income without allowing 12% of gross receipts as income which was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the first round of appeal which was accepted by the Department by not filing second appeal or cross objections.”

Additional Ground “1.1. The date of satisfaction note being 17-10-2016, the CIT(Appeals) should have considered the fact that the date of handing over the books of accounts and documents should be the date of satisfaction note, i.e. 17-10-2016 and hence, the assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-16 should have been completed u/s.15C of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the assessment purported to be made not u/s.153C is bad at law. In this regard CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. [380 ITR 0612] and the series of other judgments which followed this decision.

1.2. In the absence of a satisfaction note for AY 2015-16 [as is evident from paragraph 9.2 of the order of CIT(Appeals)] the assessment for the AY 2015-16 is bad at law based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Maheswari Vs. Asst. CIT [289 ITR 341] and also in CIT Vs. Calcutta Knitwears [362 ITR 0673] and also based on CBDT No.24 of

2015.”

3. The relevant facts in the brief are that the Assessee, at the relevant time, was engaged in the business of man power recruitment and supply. A search operation was carried out on 27/03/2015 at the premises of the Assessee on the basis of warrant issued in the name of Mr. Varghese M.V. Subsequently, assessment was framed in the hands of the Assessee vide Assessment Order, dated 28/12/2016, assessing the total income of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2015-16 at INR.428,76,18,150