PREETI GUPTA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2300/2024HC DelhiDLHC01007056202428 May 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice dated June 29, 2022, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically concerning AY 2016-2017. The Court relied on its previous decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central – 1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that the AY in question fell beyond the six preceding AYs as stipulated by Section 153C, given the date of the Satisfaction Note. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the precondition of escaped income likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs cumulatively, as per the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A, must be evident from the Satisfaction Note. The Court clarified that this threshold applies to the aggregate escaped income and not necessarily to each individual relevant assessment year. However, the Court left it open for the jurisdictional AO to examine the issue afresh and draw proceedings if the escaped income is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs, provided it is otherwise permissible in law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Preeti Gupta, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated June 29, 2022, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-2017. The challenge was also extended to all consequential proceedings. The jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) had recorded a Satisfaction Note dated June 23, 2022. The petitioner argued that the AY in question fell outside the six preceding AYs permitted under Section 153C. Furthermore, the Satisfaction Note indicated that the escaped income for the relevant AY did not exceed INR 50 lakhs, and the AO had not recorded satisfaction that the escaped income was likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs cumulatively, as required by the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated June 29, 2022, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-2017 is valid, considering the date of the Satisfaction Note and the quantum of escaped income recorded therein. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the AY 2016-2017 falls outside the permissible six preceding AYs under Section 153C, as the Satisfaction Note was dated June 23, 2022. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the AO failed to record satisfaction that the escaped income was likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs cumulatively, a prerequisite under the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2300/2024 & CM APPL. 9537/2024

PREETI GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.Gaurav Jain and

Mr.Shubham Gupta, Advs.

versus

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 DELHI ..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Shlok Chandra, Sr.SC with

Ms.Madhavi Shukla, Jr.SC,

Ms.Priya Sarkar, Jr.SC and

Mr.Sudarshan Roy, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR

KAURAV

O R D E R %

28.05.2024

1.

This writ petition has been preferred against the impugned notice dated 29 June 2022 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] for Assessment Year [“AY”] 2016-2017 and all consequential proceedings. 2. Bearing in mind the undisputed fact that the Satisfaction Note recorded by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer ["AO"] is dated 23 June 2022, it is ex facie evident that the aforenoted AY would fall beyond the window of six preceding AYs’ as provided under Section 153C of the Act. An ex facie perusal of the aforenoted Satisfaction Note indicates that the income which is alleged to have escaped assessment for the “relevant assessment year” does not exceed INR 50 lakhs. The jurisdictional AO has also failed to record its satisfaction This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2024 at 12:39:27

that the escaped income is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs or more cumulatively for the “relevant assessment year”, and thereby fulfilling the threshold requirement as prescribed by the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A of the Act. 3. The issue in any case stands answered and covered in favour of the writ petitioner in light of the judgment rendered in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central – 1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd [2024 SCC Online Del 2439]. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid decision read as under:- ““G. Insofar as the thresholds put in place by virtue of the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A are concerned and the argument of the writ petitioners of the condition of INR 50 lakhs being an unwavering precondition, we find ourselves unable to sustain that submission bearing in mind the indubitable fact that proceedings for search assessment commence upon the issuance of a notice and the AO at that stage having really not had the occasion to undertake a detailed or in depth examination of the evidence collected or come to a definitive opinion with respect to the total income which may have escaped assessment. Since the computation and assessment of income that is likely to have escaped assessment would at this stage be provisional, it would be incorrect to strike down initiation of action on a mere ex facie examination of the Satisfaction Note. We also in this regard bear in mind the Fourth Proviso using the expression “amounts to or is likely to amount”. The usage of the phrase “likely to” is indicative of the Legislature being conscious of the provisional character of the opinion that the AO may have formed at that stage.

H.However, and at the same time, even if the identified asset at that stage be quantified as less than INR 50 lakhs, the AO must for reasons to be duly recorded, be of the opinion that the ultimate computation of escaped income is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs. The aforesaid satisfaction would have to be based on an assessment of the material gathered and the potentiality of the same being indicative of the escaped assessment exceeding INR 50 lakhs. The formation of opinion in this respect would have to be based not on mere ipse dixit but reflective of a fair assessment of the quantum of income likely to have escaped assessment as distinct from mere speculation and conjecture.

I.We further hold that since the precondition of INR 50 lakhs or This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2024 at 12:39:27

more constitutes a sine qua non for initiating action for the extended ten year block, the aforesaid satisfaction and the reasons in support thereof would have to borne out from the Satisfaction Note itself. We are also of the opinion that the precondition of INR 50 lakhs is not liable to be viewed as being the qualifying criteria for each “relevant assessment year” that may be thrown open and that the said condition would stand satisfied if the escaped income cumulatively or in the aggregate meets the minimum benchmark of INR 50 lakhs.”

4.

Accordingly, and for reasons assigned in our decision in Ojjus Medicare Private Limited, while we allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned notice issued under Section 153C of the Act dated 29 June 2022 insofar as it relates to AY 2016-2017, we leave it open to the jurisdictional AO to examine the issue afresh bearing in mind the observations appearing in paragraph 3 as noted above. 5. In case the jurisdictional AO be of the opinion that the income alleged to have escaped assessment is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs in the “relevant assessment year”, it would be open to it to draw proceedings afresh, if otherwise permissible in law.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. MAY 28, 2024/MJ This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2024 at 12:39:27

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →