M/S. SLVPL VENTURE PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY M/S. SUBHLABH VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA

आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2014-15/10280398 dated 15.12.2025 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. None represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Nicholus Murmu, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

ITA 505/Kol/2026 3. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the notice u/s 148 was issued on 27.07.2022. The impugned assessment year is A.Y 2015-16. A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. vs. CBDT reported in 476 ITR 369 (SC) shows that in paras 4 and 5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

“4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693/[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:- "19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020." 5. As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021.” 3.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Sri Sai Kumar Mateti in SLP Civil Appeal No.8682 of 2024 dated 04.05.2026 in paras 4 to 7 has held as follows: “4. The instant cases were segregated through the above-mentioned order on the premise that they may be pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. It is fairly conceded by Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, representing the Revenue, that in the assessment cases pertaining to the year 2015-16, the notices 2

ITA 505/Kol/2026 issued/proposed to be issued for reassessment would stand barred by time in light of the view taken by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693. 5. There is no quarrel that if the instant cases are found to pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16, then the impugned notices are liable to be struck down outrightly in terms of the concession on behalf of the Department recorded in paragraph 19(f) of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and reiterated before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India. 6. However, if it is found that these cases pertain to an assessment year other than 2015-16, the respondent-assessees shall be entitled to raise all the contentions that have been permitted by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026. Ordered accordingly. 7. Consequently, keeping in mind the reasons set out in order dated 10.04.2026, the impugned judgment in each appeal is set aside and the instant appeals are disposed of by remitting the matters to the jurisdictional High Courts for redetermination of the issues.”

3.2 As it is found that the notice issued u/s 148 is dated 27.07.2022 and the same is categorically issued after 1st April 2021, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal referred to supra and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. referred to supra and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Sai Kumar Mateti referred to supra, it is held that the notice u/s 148 is bad in law and consequently, the same stands quashed. 4. On perusal of the facts in the present case also shows that there was a search in the case of one Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal on 24.10.2017. The assessment order came to be passed on 23.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B. From page 2 onwards in the assessment order, it is found that the Assessing Officer has used the materials found in the course 3

ITA 505/Kol/2026 of search on Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal for making the assessment in the case of the assessee. As the search in the case of Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal had taken place prior to 01.04.2021 and the materials found in the course of search had been found and used against the assessee, the assessment in the case of the assessee ought to have been done by applying the provisions of section 153C of the Act and not by applying the provisions of section 147. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of PCIT vs. VSL Mining Company (P) Ltd. reported in 157 taxmann.com 373 (Karnataka) wherein in paras 11 to 16, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held as follows:

“11. It is forthcoming that the assessee has specifically raised additional grounds before the Tribunal by contending that the AO has not followed the procedure as envisaged under Section 153C of the IT Act and that the additions made in regular assessment proceedings are required to be deleted. While considering the said contentions, the Tribunal has held as follows: "7.6.1 We have carefully considered the legal arguments/contentions put forth by both parties. The facts not in dispute are that the substantive and protective additions were made in the case on hand on the basis of material found and seized from the premises of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain. It is also amply clear that the AO did not invoke the provisions of Section 153C of the Act on receipt of the material; but rather chose to take cognizance of these materials (i.e., seized in the case of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain) in the course of pending assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2008- 09 that were before him. It is therefore clearly established that the AO has used seized material/documents found in the course of search conducted in the case of a third party (i.e., search of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain) for making the additions in the hands of the assessee, although, on protective and substantive basis; which was later on modified as substantive by the CIT(A). 7.6.2 The provisions of Section 153C of the Act enjoins upon the AO of the person searched; that on being satisfied that books of account seized or 4

ITA 505/Kol/2026 requisitioned belongs to or pertain to some other persons, to handover the books of account to the AO having jurisdiction over such other person. Thereafter, the second AO, on being satisfied that the books of account and documents received have a bearing on the determination of the total income of the other person, should assume jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act. After assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act, the AO proceeds to carry out an assessment in terms of section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. ........ 7.6.3 From the above, it is seen that the jurisdictional conditions and circumstances prescribed by the legislature for assumption of jurisdiction and taking action under section 153C of the Act is different when compared to a regular assessment. The jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153C of the Act arises when satisfaction is reached that the materials found in the course of search of some other person have a bearing on the determination of the income of the assessee. Further, in the first proviso to section 153C of the Act, it is provided that the reference to the date of search in the second proviso to section 153A of the Act; dealing with abatement of pending proceedings on the date of search; shall for the purpose of the persons proceeded under section 153C of the Act be construed as the date on which the seized materials are received by the AO. 7.6.4 In the case on hand, we find that there was a search under section 132 of the Act in the case of the assessee on 26.10.2007. After the regular assessments proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act were taken up by the assessee and during the pendency thereof; the AO received material / information from the AO of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain. As per the second proviso to section 153C of the Act, the assessment proceedings pending under section 143 of the Act in the case of the assessee before the AO would abate on the date the AO received the seized material from the AO of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain and fresh proceedings under section 153C of the Act ought to have been initiated. However, it is seen that, upon receipt of the said information / materials, the AO did not assume jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act, but rather chose to use the said materials/information for making additions in the impugned order of assessment for Assessment Year 2008-09 concluded under section 143(3) of the Act. The AO has discussed these additions in the order of assessment under the caption "Unaccounted Transactions with Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain". The AO noted that the assessment proceedings in the case of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain were 'being concluded at Central Circle-1, Belgaum'. Thereafter, he has gone on to set- out the issues in the case of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain, relevant to the assessee in the case on hand. But no satisfaction, it appears, has been recorded that these materials have a bearing on the determination of income. Thus, the AO has not followed the procedure laid down in section 153C of the Act for taking cognizance of the material found / seized in the case of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain and making an assessment with reference to those materials in the case on hand.

ITA 505/Kol/2026 7.6.7 Taking into account the aforesaid factual and legal matrix, we are of the considered view that the AO could not have taken cognizance of the seized documents and other material found and seized in the course of search conducted in the premises / case of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain, while framing the order of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act in the case on hand. As a matter of fact, the ongoing assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act would abate on receipt of these seized materials as per the second proviso to section 153A of the Act. We are of the view that in the event the AO wanted to take cognizance of the seized materials, he ought to have invoked the provisions section 153C of the Act after recording his satisfaction based on material sent by the AO of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain. This jurisdictional pre-condition laid down by the Legislature of recording of satisfaction for taking action under section 153C of the Act cannot be side- stepped / brushed aside and additions be made in proceedings pending under section 143(3) of the Act as the scope of assessments framed under sections 143(3) and 153C of the Act are quite different. In that view of the matter, we hold that the protective additions made by the AO in the impugned order of assessment for Assessment Year 2008-09 dated 31.12.2009, are contrary to the provisions of the Act and are therefore to be deleted. Similarly, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) of Rs.6,45,000/- on substantive basis as profit from trading in iron-ore based on the material found and seized in the search conducted in the case of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain is also hereby deleted. It is accordingly ordered. Consequently, the additional grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. " (emphasis supplied) 12. It is relevant to note that Chapter VI of the IT Act contemplates the procedure for assessment, wherein various stipulations are provided in terms of Sections 136 to 153 of the IT Act. Section 153A, 153B and 153C have been inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f., 1.6.2003, which specifically contemplates assessments in cases of search or requisition. Section 153A of the IT Act contains various stipulations with regard to the person searched and Section 153C of the IT Act contains various stipulations with regard to such other person, other than the person searched. 13. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dinakar Suvarna v. DCIT8 while considering an appeal of the assessee, in a fact situation wherein an assessment was re-opened under Section 147 of the IT Act based on a search conducted and the procedure under Section 153 of the IT Judgment dated 8.7.2022 passed in ITA No.16/2015 Act was not followed was under consideration. It was held as follows: "10. Admittedly no proceedings were initiated under Section 153C of the Act. Thus, there is patent non- application of mind. It is relevant to note that the author of the diary Smt. Soumya Shetty had passed away prior to the date of search. It was argued on behalf of the Revenue that Shri. Ashok Kumar Chowta had offered tax on lump-sum income. 11. Further, the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction with regard to escapement of income. On the other hand, he has based Revenue's case entirely on the statement of assessee. ......" (emphasis supplied) 6

ITA 505/Kol/2026 14. A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal v. ACT9 has held as follows: "24. In the case where search or requisition is made, the AO under Section 153A mandatorily is required to issue notices to the assessee for filing of income tax return for the relevant preceding years. The AO assumes jurisdiction to assess/reassess 'total income' by passing separate order for each assessment. 25. In cases of the person other than on whom search was conducted but material belonging or relating such person was seized or requisition, the AO has to proceed under Section 153C. The two pre-requisites are that the AO dealing with the assessee on whom search was conducted or requisition made, being satisfied that seized material belongs or relates to other assessee shall hand over it to AO having (2024) 161 taxmanncom 255 (Rajasthan) jurisdiction of such assessee. Thereafter, the satisfaction of AO receiving the seized material that the material handed over has a bearing for determination of total income of such other person for the relevant preceding years. On fulfillment of twin conditions the AO shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. 26. Special procedure is prescribed under Section 153A to 153D for assessment in cases of search and requisition. There cannot be a quibble with the proposition that the special provision shall prevail over the general provision. To say it differently the provisions of Section 153A to 153D have prevalence over the regular provisions for assessment or reassessment under Section 143 & 147/148. 27. Section 153A and 153C starts with non-obstante clause. The procedure for assessment/reassessment in Section 153A, 153C in cases of search or requisition has an overriding effect to the regular provisions for assessment or reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 32. The argument that Section 153C can be invoked in case there is incriminating material for all the relevant preceding years and otherwise Section 148 is to be resorted to, is misplaced. On satisfaction of the twin condition for proceedings under Section 153C, the AO has to proceed in accordance with Section 153A. Notice is to be issued for filing of the returns for relevant preceding years and thereupon proceed to assessee or reassessee the 'total income'. It is not obligatory on the AO to make assessment for all the years, the earlier orders passed may be accepted. But once there is incriminating material seized or requisitioned belonging or relatable to the person other than on whom search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to." (emphasis supplied) 15. In view of the settled position of law as noticed above, once material pursuant to a search is relied upon, the AO is required to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 153A, 153B and 153C of the IT Act and it is impermissible for the AO to continue the regular assessment. 16. In view of the aforementioned, substantial question of law No.2 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.”

ITA 505/Kol/2026 4.1 This being so, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of PCIT vs. VSL Mining Company (P) Ltd. referred to supra and as it is noticed that the assessment order has been passed u/s 147 and not u/s 153C and no notice has been issued to 153C assessment, the impugned assessment order passed u/s 147 in the case of the assessee stands quashed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23/06/2026.

Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 23/06/2026 RS आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. ववभागीय प्रतततनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

BY ORDER,

Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata