SANJEEV AGARWAL vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28 & ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notice dated June 29, 2022, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings. The Court relied on its previous decision in Saksham Commodities Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(1), Delhi & Anr. The reasoning was that for Section 153C proceedings to be initiated, the Assessing Officer (AO) must form an opinion and be satisfied that the material received is likely to have a bearing on the determination of the total income for a particular assessment year. This satisfaction must be based on identified incriminating material relating to that specific AY. In this case, the Satisfaction Note did not indicate any incriminating material for AY 2015-2016, nor did it provide reasons for connecting the material found for other AYs to the petitioner's income for AY 2015-2016. Therefore, the prerequisite satisfaction for issuing the notice under Section 153C for AY 2015-2016 was absent. The ratio decidendi is that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C requires specific satisfaction regarding the impact of recovered material on the total income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year, and a general or indiscriminate invocation is not permissible.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Sanjeev Agarwal, 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) 2015-2016. The notice and consequential proceedings are under challenge. The Assessing Officer of the searched person issued a Satisfaction Note on June 9, 2022. This note referred to incriminating material for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 but did not mention any such material for AY 2015-2016. Furthermore, the Satisfaction Note did not record any reasons explaining how the identified material could impact the determination of the petitioner's total income for the relevant years.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notice dated June 29, 2022, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-2016 is valid, considering the absence of incriminating material for that specific AY in the Satisfaction Note? The Assessee (Petitioner) argued that the notice under Section 153C is invalid because the Satisfaction Note, which is a prerequisite for issuing such a notice, only refers to incriminating material for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 and not for AY 2015-2016. The petitioner contended that the Satisfaction Note also failed to provide any reasons for connecting the found material to the determination of their total income for the relevant AYs. The Revenue (Respondents) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding this issue. However, their implicit contention would be that the notice was validly issued.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15920/2023 & CM APPL. 64136/2023
SANJEEV AGARWAL
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ankit Agarwal, Adv.
versus
DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL
CIRCLE 28 & ORS.
..... Respondents
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 %
16.05.2024
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”] 2015-2016 and all consequential proceedings. 2. Bearing in mind the undisputed fact that the Satisfaction Note dated 09 June 2022 issued by the Assessing Officer of the searched person refers to incriminating material for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, it is ex facie evident that no incriminating material for AY 2015-2016 has been found. The aforenoted Satisfaction Note also fails to record any reasons which may have indicated how the said material could 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 28/05/2024 at 12:20:48
“have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person” for the years in question. 3. Undisputedly, the issue now stands answered and covered in favour of the writ petitioner bearing in mind the principles that we had enunciated in Saksham Commodities Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(1), Delhi & Anr [2024 SCC OnLine Del 2551]. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision read as follows:- “63. On an overall consideration of the structure of Sections 153A and 153C, we thus find that a reopening or abatement would be triggered only upon the discovery of material which is likely to “have a bearing on the determination of the total income” and would have to be examined bearing in mind the AYs' which are likely to be impacted. It would thus be incorrect to either interpret or construe Section 153C as envisaging incriminating material pertaining to a particular AY having a cascading effect and which would warrant a mechanical and inevitable assessment or reassessment for the entire block of the “relevant assessment year”. 64. In our considered view, abatement of the six AYs' or the “relevant assessment year” under Section 153C would follow the formation of opinion and satisfaction being reached that the material received is likely to impact the computation of income for a particular AY or AYs' that may form part of the block of ten AYs'. Abatement would be triggered by the formation of that opinion rather than the other way around. This, in light of the discernibly distinguishable statutory regime underlying Sections 153A and 153C as explained above. While in the case of the former, a notice would inevitably be issued the moment a search is undertaken or documents requisitioned, whereas in the case of the latter, the proceedings would be liable to be commenced only upon the AO having formed the opinion that the material gathered is likely to inculpate the assessee. While in the case of a Section 153A assessment, the issue of whether additions are liable to be made based upon the material recovered is an aspect which would merit consideration in the course of the assessment proceedings, under Section 153C, the AO would have to be prima facie satisfied that the documents, data or asset recovered is likely to “have a bearing on the determination of the total income”. It is only once an opinion in that regard is formed that the AO would be legally justified in issuing a notice under that provision and which in turn would culminate in the abatement of pending assessments or reassessments as the case may be. 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 28/05/2024 at 12:20:48
We would thus recognize the flow of events contemplated under Section 153C being firstly the receipt of books, accounts, documents or assets by the jurisdictional AO, an evaluation and examination of their contents and an assessment of the potential impact that they may have on the total income for the six AYs' immediately preceding the AY pertaining to the year of search and the “relevant assessment year”. It is only once the AO of the non-searched entity is satisfied that the material coming into its possession is likely to “have a bearing on the determination of the total income” that a notice under Section 153C would be issued. Abatement would thus be a necessary corollary of that notice. However, both the issuance of notice as well as abatement would have to necessarily be preceded by the satisfaction spoken of above being reached by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched entity. 66. Therefore, and in our opinion, abatement of the six AYs' or the “relevant assessment year” would follow the formation of that opinion and satisfaction in that respect being reached. 67. On an overall consideration of the aforesaid, we come to the firm conclusion that the “incriminating material” which is spoken of would have to be identified with respect to the AY to which it relates or may be likely to impact before the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act. A material, document or asset recovered in the course of a search or on the basis of a requisition made would justify abatement of only those pending assessments or reopening of such concluded assessments to which alone it relates or is likely to have a bearing on the estimation of income. The mere existence of a power to assess or reassess the six AYs' immediately preceding the AY corresponding to the year of search or the “relevant assessment year” would not justify a sweeping or indiscriminate invocation of Section 153C. 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.” 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 28/05/2024 at 12:20:48
Accordingly, and for reasons assigned in our decision in Saksham Commodities Limited, we allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned notice dated 29 June 2022 issued under Section 153C of the Act and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. MAY 16, 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 28/05/2024 at 12:20:48
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 →- M/S.Ishwar Chandra Barik, Keonjhar vs. Commissioner(Appeal), GST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Surveillance System, Sambalpur vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST Odisha , CT And GST Commissionerate , Cuttack OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Himansu Palei vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST CBIC Keonjhar Division, KeonjharOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Access Worldwide Cargo vs. The Commissioner Of CustomsKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Greenlam Industries LTD And Another vs. The UOI And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026