PANCH TATVA PROMOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25 DELHI AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17393/2024HC DelhiDLHC01094752202420 May 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and set aside the notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto for AY 2017-18. The Court reasoned that the information found during the search, which pertained to FY 2014-15, could not have a bearing on the petitioner's income for AY 2017-18. The Court referred to paragraph 68 of its decision in Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 22 (1), Delhi & Anr., which states that the jurisdictional AO must be satisfied that the material received is likely to have a bearing on the total income of the relevant assessment years before proceeding under Section 153C. The power to assess under Section 153C is confined to those years to which the material relates or is likely to influence. Absent any material casting doubt on the total income for a particular year, the AO is not justified in invoking Section 153C. The Court found that the pen-drive did not contain any incriminating material pertaining to the petitioner for AY 2017-18.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Panch Tatva Promoters Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The notice was based on a satisfaction note from the Assessing Officer (AO) of searched persons, Mr. Samir Modi and Ms. Shivani Modi, who found documents pertaining to the petitioner during a search on 03.02.2021. The satisfaction note mentioned a pen-drive containing information about transactions with companies providing accommodation entries. The alleged transaction involving the petitioner was ₹70,78,680/- supported by a bogus invoice, but this transaction pertained to Financial Year 2014-15.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 are valid, given that the material found during the search pertains to FY 2014-15 and not AY 2017-18? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the information found during the search, specifically regarding a transaction in FY 2014-15, could not possibly lead to the conclusion that income for AY 2017-18 had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings under Section 153C were not justified. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society and the Delhi High Court decision in Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 22 (1), Delhi & Anr. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 17393/2024

Page 1 of 4 $~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of Decision: 20.05.2025 + W.P.(C) 17393/2024 and CM APPL. 74044/2024 & 74045/2024

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] 2017-18. 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 18:26:53 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 17393/2024

Page 2 of 4 3. Admittedly, the satisfaction note does not contain any information which may have a bearing on determining the petitioner’s income assessable in the AY 2017-18. 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 search 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”

Digitally Signed By:RAM KUMAR Signing Date:23.05.2025 18:26:53 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 17393/2024

Page 3 of 4 5. It is clear from the above that the information provided in the satisfaction note dated 28.08.2024 entered by the AO of the assessee could not possibly lead to the conclusion that the income of the Assessee for AY 2017-18 had escaped assessment. The pen drive found cannot be considered as containing any incriminating material pertaining to the petitioner in respect of AY 2017-18. 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:

68.

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 Digitally Signed By:RAM KUMAR Signing Date:23.05.2025 18:26:53 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 17393/2024

Page 4 of 4 notice issued under Section 153C of the Act and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto in respect of AY 2017-18 are set aside. 9. The pending applications are 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 18:26:53 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →