ULTIMATE BEAUTY N FITNESS PRIVATE LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 27-1, DELHI & ANR.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice dated August 1, 2022, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning AY 2015-16. The Court relied on its previous decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central – 1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The primary reasoning was that the notice was issued beyond the six preceding AYs window and the AO's Satisfaction Note did not meet the threshold requirement of the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A. Specifically, the AO failed to record satisfaction that the escaped income for the relevant AY was likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs. The Court clarified that while the initial quantification of escaped income might be provisional, the AO must form an opinion, based on material gathered, that the ultimate computation of escaped income is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs. This satisfaction, with supporting reasons, must be evident from the Satisfaction Note. The INR 50 lakhs threshold applies cumulatively to the aggregate escaped income, not necessarily to each individual relevant AY. The AO is permitted 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, Ultimate Beauty N Fitness Private Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated August 1, 2022, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1), Delhi, and another authority. The notice was issued beyond the six preceding AYs window stipulated by Section 153C. The Satisfaction Note recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) on August 1, 2022, indicated that the income alleged to have escaped assessment for the relevant AY did not exceed INR 50 lakhs. Furthermore, the AO failed to record satisfaction that the escaped income for the relevant AY, potentially extending to 10 AYs, was likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs, a threshold requirement under the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notice dated August 1, 2022, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-16 is valid, considering it falls outside the six preceding AYs window and the AO's satisfaction note does not meet the threshold requirements of the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A. Assessee's Contention: The notice is invalid as it was issued beyond the permissible period and the AO's satisfaction note fails to demonstrate that the escaped income is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs, as required by the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the issuance of the notice implies a belief that assessment proceedings were warranted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2909/2024 & CM APPL. 11989/2024 (Stay) ULTIMATE BEAUTY N FITNESS PRIVATE LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Chanana & Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advs versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 27(1), DELHI & ANR.
.....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. Ashvini Kumar & Mr. Rishabh Nangia, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R %
05.08.2024 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned notice dated 01 August 2022 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] for Assessment Year [“AY’”] 2015-16 and all consequential proceedings. 2. Bearing in mind the undisputed fact that the notice under Section 153C is dated 01 August 2022, it is ex facie evident that the aforenoted AY would fall beyond the window of six preceding AYs’ as provided under Section 153C. It is manifest from an ex facie perusal of the Satisfaction Note recorded by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer [“AO”] dated 01 August 2022 that the income which is alleged to have escaped assessment for the “relevant 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 03/07/2025 at 09:58:06
assessment year” does not exceed INR 50 lakhs. The jurisdictional AO has also failed to record its satisfaction that the escaped income for the “relevant assessment year”, and which would necessarily stretch to the block of 10 AYs’, is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs and thereby fulfilling the threshold requirement as prescribed by the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A. 3. We find that the aforesaid aspects were duly considered by us while rendering judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central – 1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd [2024 SCC Online Del 2439]. We deem it apposite to extract the following paragraphs of the aforesaid decision hereinbelow:- “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 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 03/07/2025 at 09:58:06
speculation and conjecture. I.We further hold that since the precondition of INR 50 lakhs or 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 Pvt. Ltd., while we allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned notice issued under Section 153C of the Act dated 01 August 2022 insofar as it relates to AY 2015-16, we leave it open to the jurisdictional AO to examine the issue afresh bearing in mind the observations appearing in para 3 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. RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. AUGUST 5, 2024/sk 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 03/07/2025 at 09:58:06
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 →- Amber Nutrition Private Limited vs. Mr Manish Chandak & Anr.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Kajaria Ceramics Limited vs. Mr Yomesh VijayaDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Marico Limited vs. Shree Uday Oil And Food Industries LLPDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Laborate Pharmaceuticals INDIA Limited vs. M/S Jmbs Healthcare Through Its PartnersDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Pharmed Limited vs. Best Biotech & Ors.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026