PANCH TATVA PROMOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25 DELHI AND ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto for AY 2016-17. The Court found that the satisfaction note, which was the basis for the Section 153C notice, did not contain any material that could lead to the conclusion that the petitioner's income for AY 2016-17 had escaped assessment. The pen-drive data, which indicated a transaction of ₹70,78,680/- with HGEL, pertained to FY 2014-15 and was therefore not incriminating material for AY 2016-17. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT-III, Pune v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society and its own recent decision in Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. ITO Ward 22(1), Delhi & Anr., which held that the AO must be satisfied that the material received is likely to have a bearing on the total income of the relevant assessment years before invoking Section 153C, and the power is confined to those years to which the material relates or is likely to influence.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Panch Tatva Promoters Private Limited, challenged a notice dated August 28, 2024, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The notice was based on a satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer (AO) for searched persons, Mr. Samir Modi and Ms. Shivani Modi, whose search on February 3, 2021, allegedly yielded documents pertaining to the petitioner. The satisfaction note mentioned a pen-drive containing data on transactions with entities providing accommodation entries. The petitioner's purported transaction of ₹70,78,680/- with HGEL, supported by a bogus invoice, was noted as pertaining to Financial Year 2014-15.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notice dated August 28, 2024, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid for AY 2016-17, considering the material found during the search of Mr. Samir Modi and Ms. Shivani Modi. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the satisfaction note, which formed the basis for the Section 153C notice, did not contain any information relevant to determining the petitioner's income for AY 2016-17. The identified transaction of ₹70,78,680/- pertained to FY 2014-15, and thus, could not justify reopening the assessment for AY 2016-17 under Section 153C. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
W.P.(C) 17372/2024
Page 1 of 4
$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %
Date of Decision: 20.05.2025 + W.P.(C) 17372/2024 and CM APPL. 73969/2024
PANCH TATVA PROMOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Petitioner Through: Mr Somil Agarwal and Mr Dushyant Agrawal, Advocates.
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25 DELHI AND ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr Siddhartha Sinha, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 28.08.2024 [the impugned notice] issued under 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] as well as the proceedings for re- assessment of the petitioner’s income in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2016-17. 2. The impugned notice is premised on the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer [AO] of Mr. Samir Modi and Ms. Shivani Modi (searched persons), which recorded that documents containing information pertaining to the petitioner were found during the search conducted in the case of searched persons on 03.02.2021. Digitally Signed By:RAM KUMAR Signing Date:23.05.2025 19:09:51 Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17372/2024
Page 2 of 4
Admittedly, the satisfaction note does not contain any information which may have a bearing on determining the petitioner’s income assessable in the AY 2016-17. The note indicates that during the course of the search, a pen-drive was found, which contained certain information regarding transactions entered into by HGEL (High Ground Enterprises Ltd.) with companies that had provided accommodation entries through generation of bogus invoices. 4. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, information allegedly found was regarding a purported transaction of ₹70,78,680/-, which was allegedly supported by bogus invoice. However, the said transaction pertains to the Financial Year 2014-15. Paragraph 13 of the satisfaction note is set out below: “13. Further, during the searched action, several digital devices were cloned and had been annexurised. In one red SanDisk pen drive which was cloned into the Hard-Disk marked as Annexure A3, the tally data of entities had been maintained. The Managing director of High Ground Enterprises Limited i.e. Sandeep Ramkrishna Arora admitted that transactions between High Ground Enterprise Limited and companies may not be 100 percent genuine. The pen drive contains all detailed transactions done by HGEL with the companies who may provided accommodation entries through generation of bogus invoices from FY 2014-15 to FY 2020-21.
Details of transaction of assessee to whom bogus service has been provided by HGEL S.NO. Name of the Assessee PAN FY Amount 1 Panch Tatva Promoters Pvt Ltd. AAFCP6505P 2014-15 70,78,680
TOTAL 70,78,680”
It is clear from the above that the information provided in the Digitally Signed By:RAM KUMAR Signing Date:23.05.2025 19:09:51 Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17372/2024
Page 3 of 4
satisfaction note dated 03.07.2024 entered by the AO of the searched persons could not possibly lead to the conclusion that the income of the Assessee for AY 2016-17 had escaped assessment. The pen drive found cannot be considered as containing any incriminating material pertaining to the petitioner in respect of AY 2016-17. Thus, the petitioner’s assessment for the said year could not be reopened under Section 153C of the Act. 6. Concededly, the aforesaid issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society: [2017] 84 taxmann.com 290 as well as the recent decision of this court in Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 22 (1), Delhi & Anr.: 2024:DHC:2836-DB. 7. It is relevant to set out paragraph 68 of the said decision which reads as under:
The jurisdictional AO would have to firstly be satisfied that the material received is likely to have a bearing on or impact the total income of years or years which may form part of the block of six or ten AYs’ and thereafter proceed to place the assessee on notice under Section 153C. The power to undertake such an assessment would stand confined to those years to which the material may relate or is likely to influence. Absent any material that may either cast a doubt on the estimation of total income for a particular year or years, the AO would not be justified in invoking its powers conferred by Section 153C. It would only be consequent to such satisfaction being reached that a notice would be liable to be issued and thus resulting in the abatement of pending proceedings and reopening of concluded assessments. [Emphasis added] 8. In view of the above the present petition is allowed and the impugned notice issued under Section 153C of the Act and the proceedings initiated Digitally Signed By:RAM KUMAR Signing Date:23.05.2025 19:09:51 Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17372/2024
Page 4 of 4
pursuant thereto in respect of AY 2016-17 are set aside. 9. The pending application is also disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 20, 2025 RK
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Digitally Signed By:RAM KUMAR Signing Date:23.05.2025 19:09:51 Signature Not Verified
More judgments on Section 153C
- Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited… vs ACIT Central Circle-1(2), BangaloreITA 256/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ajay Singh, Kota vs DCIT, Central Circle, KotaITA 495/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shobha Kumari vs. State Of Bihar And AnrPatna · 3 Nov 2026
- Distributory Committee vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner 1Andhra Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- Smt. T.Leela vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- Divikolu Subba Rao vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Delhi Tools vs. The Commissioner CGST & Anr.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026