NAND KISHORE GARG vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTAL CIRCLE-32 DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4169/2024HC DelhiDLHC01014534202419 July 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notice dated September 30, 2022, issued under Section 153C of the Act, along with all consequential proceedings. The Court relied on its prior decision in Saksham Commodities Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(1), Delhi & Anr. The reasoning was that Section 153C proceedings are triggered only upon the discovery of material that is likely to have a bearing on the determination of total income for a particular AY. The Court emphasized that abatement of assessments under Section 153C follows the formation of an opinion by the AO that the material received is likely to impact the computation of income for a specific AY. The judgment reiterated that the "incriminating material" must be identified with respect to the AY it relates to or is likely to impact before initiating proceedings under Section 153C. The power under Section 153C is confined to those years to which the material may relate or is likely to influence, and absent such material, the AO is not justified in invoking the provision. Therefore, since the Satisfaction Note pertained to different AYs and no incriminating material was found for AY 2019-2020, the notice was quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nand Kishore Garg, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated September 30, 2022, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-2020. The challenge also extended to all consequential proceedings. The core of the dispute lies in the fact that the Satisfaction Note dated June 24, 2022, issued by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, pertained to incriminating material for AYs 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2014-15. This indicated that no incriminating material was found for the AY in question (2019-2020). The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without a proper basis, as the incriminating material did not relate to the AY for which the notice was issued.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated September 30, 2022, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020 is valid, given that the Satisfaction Note from the searched person's AO pertains to incriminating material for AYs 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2014-15, and no incriminating material was found for AY 2019-2020? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 153C). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 153C was invalid because the incriminating material found did not relate to the assessment year for which the notice was issued. They relied on the principle that Section 153C proceedings can only be initiated if the material found has a bearing on the determination of total income for a specific AY. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in opposition to the petitioner's arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4169/2024 & CM APPL. 16991/2024 (Stay) NAND KISHORE GARG .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate versus ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTAL CIRCLE-32 DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Rishabh Nangia & Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R %

19.07.2024 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned notice dated 30 September 2022 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] for Assessment Year [“AY”] 2019-2020 and all consequential proceedings. 2. Bearing in mind the undisputed fact that the Satisfaction Note dated 24 June 2022 issued by the Assessing Officer [“AO”] of the searched person relates to incriminating material for AYs 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2014-15 it is ex facie evident that no incriminating material for the aforenoted has been found. 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 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 21:45:37

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. 65. 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. 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 21:45:37

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.” 4. Accordingly, and for reasons assigned in our decision in Saksham Commodities Limited, we allow the instant writ petitions and quash the impugned notice dated 30 September 2022 issued under Section 153C of the Act and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. YASHWANT VARMA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J JULY 19, 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 21:45:37

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →