Count from the date the seized material reached your Assessing Officer, not from the date of the search. The first proviso to s.153C(1) substitutes the date of receipt of the books, documents or assets by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person for the date of initiation of the search, and the Supreme Court has held that the block for the other person commences from that date.
Section 153C(1) provides that where the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that seized or requisitioned material belongs to another person, the material "shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person", who then proceeds to assess or reassess that person in accordance with s.153A. The first proviso is the whole of this point:
"Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person."
So the searched person's block is anchored to the search. The other person's block is anchored to the handover. The two are routinely years apart, because the satisfaction note in the searched person's file is often recorded long after the search — and the corpus already holds cit-v-calcutta-knitwears on when that satisfaction may be recorded, super-malls-v-pcit on the two satisfactions that are required, and cit-v-sinhgad-technical-education-society on the material having to relate to the years assessed.
On the effect of the proviso, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Jasjit Singh (2023) 458 ITR 437 / 295 Taxman 612 (SC), heard with CIT v. R.L. Allied Industries, CIT v. Raunak Infrastructure Ltd and CIT v. Bhupender Pal Singh Sarna, held that in the case of the other person the period for which returns were required to be filed commenced only from the date when the materials were forwarded to their jurisdictional Assessing Officers. The Court affirmed the Delhi High Court and a review petition was dismissed in CIT v. Jasjit Singh (2025) 476 ITR 157 / 304 Taxman 602 (SC), both on a 433-day delay that was not explained and on merits.
The Delhi High Court has since worked the arithmetic out in PCIT v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101 / 338 CTR 241 (Delhi)(HC), which holds that the commencement date for computing the six-year or ten-year block under s.153C is deemed to be the date of receipt of the books of account by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the other party. The same decision records two further points from the digest fetched for this entry: that the fifty lakh threshold for the extended block is to be applied cumulatively across the relevant years rather than year by year, and that the 2017 amendments extending the block to ten years do not apply to searches conducted before they came into force.
What this does in practice is move the window forward and, usually, narrow it. A notice that reaches back seven or ten years from the date of the search is answering the wrong question. Work out the date of receipt from the record — the satisfaction note, the covering letter transmitting the material, and the entry in the receiving officer's file — and recompute. Years that fall outside the recomputed block go, and they go on jurisdiction rather than on merits.
This is the cheapest ground available in a s.153C case, because it is arithmetic on the department's own record and does not depend on the strength of the seized material. It also decides which years you need to fight at all, so it should be settled before any factual reply is drafted.
I paid advance tax for the year but had not filed my return when the search took place. Can the department still call that income undisclosed?
The Commissioner refused to waive the interest on my demand because I own property worth crores. Is owning assets an answer to genuine hardship?
When must the satisfaction note be recorded before proceedings are taken against a third party?
A search was made on someone else and my papers were found. From which date are my six years counted - the search, or when my Assessing Officer got the papers?
The company and I have a mutual, open and current account with money moving both ways. Is the deemed dividend the closing debit balance, the highest debit balance during the year, or something else? And can the Department tax money that reached me through a firm rather than directly?
The seized documents say nothing about the years being assessed. Can s.153C still be used for them?
Customs seized my cash and was ordered to return it. Can the income-tax department issue a search warrant and take it from customs instead?
The police seized cash from our employee and the Commissioner issued a section 132A warrant because he had no papers for it — is that authorisation valid?
Every page in this library links to what it was written from, so you can check it rather than take our word for it.
