Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the common order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The appeals pertained to additions made under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following a search operation. The core issue was the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer under Section 153C.
Held
The Tribunal held that the block of ten assessment years for reopening under Section 153C is to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year in which the satisfaction note is recorded, not from the year of search. As the satisfaction note was recorded in FY 2021-22, the ten-year period extended up to AY 2012-13. Therefore, proceedings for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 were beyond this permissible period.
Key Issues
Whether the Assessing Officer had valid jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to initiate proceedings for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, considering the relevant period for computation of the ten-year block.
Sections Cited
153C, 153A, 143(3), 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
These two appeals by the assessee are directed against a common order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 52, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively.
Babulal Mulchand Varma Babulal & 3148/MUM/2025
As the issues involved in both As the issues involved in both the appeals are common and the appeals are common and interconnected, the same were heard together and are being interconnected, the same were heard together and are being interconnected, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience. disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience. disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience. We shall first take up the appeal relating to the assessment year We shall first take up the appeal relating to the assessment year We shall first take up the appeal relating to the assessment year 2009-10. The grounds of appeal
rais
10. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as ed by the assessee read as under:
Notice u/s. 153C bad in law : Notice u/s. 153C bad in law : 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order passed 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order passed 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act without appreciating by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act without appreciating by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act without appreciating that notice and assessment was time barred. that notice and assessment was time barred.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that satisfaction note failed to appreciate that satisfaction note recorded u/s. 153C of the Act was not provided to the assessee recorded u/s. 153C of the Act was not provided to the assessee recorded u/s. 153C of the Act was not provided to the assessee inspite of specific demand. inspite of specific demand. Addition of Rs. 1,14,26,150/ Addition of Rs. 1,14,26,150/- : 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.
3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.
3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,14,26,150/ 1,14,26,150/- on account of unexplained xplained & & unaccounted unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act without appreciating that the investment u/s 69 of the Act without appreciating that the investment u/s 69 of the Act without appreciating that the property in question belonged to the firm MBH Enterprises and not property in question belonged to the firm MBH Enterprises and not property in question belonged to the firm MBH Enterprises and not the assessee. the assessee.
4. The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.
4. The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.
4. The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,14,26,150/ 1,14,26,150/- on account of unexplained ed & & unaccounted unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act without providing the copy of investment u/s 69 of the Act without providing the copy of investment u/s 69 of the Act without providing the copy of statement recorded of the third party nor provided cross statement recorded of the third party nor provided cross statement recorded of the third party nor provided cross examination, thus merely relying on document found from third examination, thus merely relying on document found from third examination, thus merely relying on document found from third party premises addition is made in total breach of principle party premises addition is made in total breach of principle party premises addition is made in total breach of principle of natural justice. natural justice.
5. The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.
5. The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.
5. The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,14,26,150/ 1,14,26,150/- on on account account of of unexplained unexplained & & unaccounted unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act on the alleged ground that cash investment u/s 69 of the Act on the alleged ground that cash investment u/s 69 of the Act on the alleged ground that cash payment has been made in the purchase transaction by the payment has been made in the purchase transaction by the payment has been made in the purchase transaction by the assessee, without any reference to stamp duty value / circle rate e, without any reference to stamp duty value / circle rate e, without any reference to stamp duty value / circle rate prevailing in the area or reference to a registered valuer to prevailing in the area or reference to a registered valuer to prevailing in the area or reference to a registered valuer to ascertain the market value. ascertain the market value.
Babulal Mulchand Varma Babulal & 3148/MUM/2025
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income for the his original return of income for the assessment year under assessment year under consideration on 31.07.2009, declaring a total income of Rs. consideration on 31.07.2009, declaring a total income of Rs. consideration on 31.07.2009, declaring a total income of Rs. 74,50,560/-. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under . Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under . Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was conducted by the Investig “the Act”) was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income ation Wing of the Income- tax Department on 06.03.2018 in the case of the SSS (Satyam, tax Department on 06.03.2018 in the case of the SSS (Satyam, tax Department on 06.03.2018 in the case of the SSS (Satyam, Sangani, Shaligram) group of companies. Sangani, Shaligram) group of companies.
3.1 Pursuant to the search, certain material and information Pursuant to the search, certain material and information Pursuant to the search, certain material and information allegedly pertaining to the assessee were stated to have been found. allegedly pertaining to the assessee were stated to have been found. allegedly pertaining to the assessee were stated to have been found. On the basis thereof, satisfaction under section 153C of the Act was On the basis thereof, satisfaction under section 153C of the Act was On the basis thereof, satisfaction under section 153C of the Act was recorded by the competent authority, and a notice under the said recorded by the competent authority, and a notice under the said recorded by the competent authority, and a notice under the said provision was issued by the Assessing Officer on 29.06.2021, which provision was issued by the Assessing Officer on 29.06.2021, which provision was issued by the Assessing Officer on 29.06.2021, which was duly served upon the assessee. In response thereto, the was duly served upon the assessee. In response thereto, was duly served upon the assessee. In response thereto, assessee filed a return of income on 04.12.2021, declaring the same assessee filed a return of income on 04.12.2021, declaring the same assessee filed a return of income on 04.12.2021, declaring the same income at Rs.74,50,560/ at Rs.74,50,560/- as returned originally.
3.2 Thereafter, statutory notices under the Act were issued and Thereafter, statutory notices under the Act were issued and Thereafter, statutory notices under the Act were issued and complied with. In the course of assessment proceedings, the complied with. In the course of assessment proceedings, the complied with. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that certain incriminating material, Officer observed that certain incriminating material, Officer observed that certain incriminating material, stated to be in the nature of a ledger account maintained in the stated to be in the nature of a ledger account maintained in the stated to be in the nature of a ledger account maintained in the books of a real estate developer and found during the course of books of a real estate developer and found during the course of books of a real estate developer and found during the course of search, reflected the purchase of a residential unit by the assessee search, reflected the purchase of a residential unit by the assessee search, reflected the purchase of a residential unit by the assessee in the project “Satyam Sentosa Greenland Phase A he project “Satyam Sentosa Greenland Phase A he project “Satyam Sentosa Greenland Phase A–B”. It was alleged that against the total consideration of Rs. 1,81,10,000/-, a alleged that against the total consideration of Rs. 1,81,10,000/ alleged that against the total consideration of Rs. 1,81,10,000/
Babulal Mulchand Varma Babulal & 3148/MUM/2025 sum of Rs. 1,26,10,000/ sum of Rs. 1,26,10,000/- was paid by the assessee in cash. As the was paid by the assessee in cash. As the assessee was unable to satisfactorily explain the source of the assessee was unable to satisfactorily explain the source of the assessee was unable to satisfactorily explain the source of the alleged cash payment, the Assessing Officer, in the assessment lleged cash payment, the Assessing Officer, in the assessment lleged cash payment, the Assessing Officer, in the assessment completed on 27.12.2021 under section 153C read with sections completed on 27.12.2021 under section 153C read with sections completed on 27.12.2021 under section 153C read with sections 143(3) and 153A of the Act, made an addition of Rs. 1,14,26,150/- 143(3) and 153A of the Act, made an addition of Rs. 1,14,26,150/ 143(3) and 153A of the Act, made an addition of Rs. 1,14,26,150/ on account of alleged on on account of alleged on-money payment.
Aggrieved, the assessee Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), challenging both the tax (Appeals), challenging both the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act as well as assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act as well as assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act as well as the addition made on merits. However, the appeal did not find the addition made on merits. However, the appeal did not find the addition made on merits. However, the appeal did not find favour with the Ld. CI favour with the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is, therefore, in further T(A). The assessee is, therefore, in further appeal before the Tribunal by raising the grounds reproduced appeal before the Tribunal by raising the grounds reproduced appeal before the Tribunal by raising the grounds reproduced hereinabove.
Before us, the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing Before us, the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing Before us, the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 132.
5.1 The Ld. counsel for the assessee, referring to Grounds The Ld. counsel for the assessee, referring to Grounds The Ld. counsel for the assessee, referring to Grounds Nos. 1 and 2, contended that pursuant to the amendment to section 153A and 2, contended that pursuant to the amendment to section 153A and 2, contended that pursuant to the amendment to section 153A of the Act with effect from 01.04.2017, assessment proceedings of the Act with effect from 01.04.2017, assessment proceedings of the Act with effect from 01.04.2017, assessment proceedings could be initiated for a maximum of ten assessment years preceding could be initiated for a maximum of ten assessment years preceding could be initiated for a maximum of ten assessment years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the the assessment year relevant to the previous year in wh the assessment year relevant to the previous year in wh triggering event occurs. It was submitted that where proceedings triggering event occurs. It was submitted that where proceedings triggering event occurs. It was submitted that where proceedings are initiated under section 153C of the Act, the block of ten are initiated under section 153C of the Act, the block of ten are initiated under section 153C of the Act, the block of ten preceding assessment years has necessarily to be reckoned with preceding assessment years has necessarily to be reckoned with preceding assessment years has necessarily to be reckoned with Babulal Mulchand Varma Babulal & 3148/MUM/2025 reference to the assessment year in which the satisfaction under reference to the assessment year in which the satisfaction reference to the assessment year in which the satisfaction section 153C is recorded, and not from the year of search. section 153C is recorded, and not from the year of search. section 153C is recorded, and not from the year of search.
5.2 It was argued that since, in the present case, the satisfaction It was argued that since, in the present case, the satisfaction It was argued that since, in the present case, the satisfaction note was admittedly recorded in financial year 2021-22, the ten- note was admittedly recorded in financial year 2021 note was admittedly recorded in financial year 2021 year block would commence from assessment year 2022-23 and year block would commence from assessment year 2022 year block would commence from assessment year 2022 extend backwards only up to assessment year 2012-13. As the extend backwards only up to assessment year 2012 extend backwards only up to assessment year 2012 assessment years involved in the present appeals fall beyond the t years involved in the present appeals fall beyond the t years involved in the present appeals fall beyond the said period, the proceedings initiated under section 153C read with said period, the proceedings initiated under section 153C read with said period, the proceedings initiated under section 153C read with section 153A of the Act were without jurisdiction and liable to be section 153A of the Act were without jurisdiction and liable to be section 153A of the Act were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi quashed. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delh quashed. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delh High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Principal Commissioner of Income Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Central v. Amol Awasthi [2025] 173 taxmann.com 989 (Delhi) and the Hon’ble Amol Awasthi [2025] 173 taxmann.com 989 (Delhi) Amol Awasthi [2025] 173 taxmann.com 989 (Delhi) Bombay High Court in Bombay High Court in Ashok Khandelwal v. Union of India and Ashok Khandelwal v. Union of India and Ors. in writ petition (L) No. 7690 of 2024. Ors. in writ petition (L) No. 7690 of 2024.
On the contrary, the On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The limited issue for our consideration is available on record. The limited issue for our consideration is available on record. The limited issue for our consideration is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in ass whether the Assessing Officer was justified in assuming jurisdiction uming jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act for the assessment years under under section 153C of the Act for the assessment years under under section 153C of the Act for the assessment years under consideration.
7.1 The factual position is not in dispute. The proceedings against The factual position is not in dispute. The proceedings against The factual position is not in dispute. The proceedings against the assessee were initiated under section 153C of the Act on the the assessee were initiated under section 153C of the Act on the the assessee were initiated under section 153C of the Act on the Babulal Mulchand Varma Babulal & 3148/MUM/2025 basis of material allegedly basis of material allegedly found during the course of search found during the course of search conducted on 06.03.2018 in the case of the SSS Group. The notice conducted on 06.03.2018 in the case of the SSS Group. The notice conducted on 06.03.2018 in the case of the SSS Group. The notice under section 153C of the Act was issued on 29.06.2021. Though a under section 153C of the Act was issued on 29.06.2021. Though a under section 153C of the Act was issued on 29.06.2021. Though a copy of the satisfaction note has not been placed before us, it is a copy of the satisfaction note has not been placed before us, it is a copy of the satisfaction note has not been placed before us, it is a fair and reasonable pre fair and reasonable presumption that such satisfaction was sumption that such satisfaction was recorded immediately prior to the issuance of notice and, in any recorded immediately prior to the issuance of notice and, in any recorded immediately prior to the issuance of notice and, in any event, during the financial year 2021 event, during the financial year 2021-22.
7.2 The Assessing Officer proceeded to issue notices for ten The Assessing Officer proceeded to issue notices for ten The Assessing Officer proceeded to issue notices for ten assessment years preceding the assessment year relevant to the assessment years preceding the assessment year relev assessment years preceding the assessment year relev year of search. The search in the case of SSS group of companies The search in the case of SSS group of companies The search in the case of SSS group of companies was carried out on 06.03.2018. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was carried out on 06.03.2018. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was carried out on 06.03.2018. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153C read with section 153A of the Act in respect issued notice u/s 153C read with section 153A of the Act in respect issued notice u/s 153C read with section 153A of the Act in respect of 10 preceding assessment years from AY 2017 of 10 preceding assessment years from AY 2017-18 to 2008 18 to 2008-09. The assessee has challenged this action contending that, in the case of assessee has challenged this action contending that, in the case of assessee has challenged this action contending that, in the case of proceedings under section 153C of the Act, the block of six or ten proceedings under section 153C of the Act, the block of six or ten proceedings under section 153C of the Act, the block of six or ten assessment years has to be reckoned from the assessment year assessment years has to be reckoned from the assessment year assessment years has to be reckoned from the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which t relevant to the financial year in which the satisfaction note is he satisfaction note is recorded, and not from the year of search. recorded, and not from the year of search. The Ld. CIT(A) after he Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee dismissed the grounds considering the submission of the assessee dismissed the grounds considering the submission of the assessee dismissed the grounds of the assessee observing as under: of the assessee observing as under:
“6. I have considered the facts of the case. The additional ground I have considered the facts of the case. The additional ground I have considered the facts of the case. The additional ground is taken up first for adjudication. According to the appellant, the is taken up first for adjudication. According to the appellant, the is taken up first for adjudication. According to the appellant, the notices u/s 153C could not have been issued for AY 2009 notices u/s 153C could not have been issued for AY 2009 notices u/s 153C could not have been issued for AY 2009-10 & 2010-11. The appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'bl 11. The appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'bl 11. The appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Ojjus Medicare P Ltd (2024) Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Ojjus Medicare P Ltd (2024) Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Ojjus Medicare P Ltd (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Delhi). 465 ITR 101 (Delhi).
Babulal Mulchand Varma Babulal & 3148/MUM/2025
6.1. I have carefully perused the contentions of the appellant. The 6.1. I have carefully perused the contentions of the appellant. The 6.1. I have carefully perused the contentions of the appellant. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikram Sujit Kumar Bhatia, 453 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikram Sujit Kumar Bhatia, 453 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikram Sujit Kumar Bhatia, 453 ITR 417 held that Section 153C i ITR 417 held that Section 153C is a machinery provision and that s a machinery provision and that it must give effect to its manifest purpose by construing it in such a it must give effect to its manifest purpose by construing it in such a it must give effect to its manifest purpose by construing it in such a manner so as to effectuate the object and purpose of the statute. manner so as to effectuate the object and purpose of the statute. manner so as to effectuate the object and purpose of the statute. 6.2. An amendment was also brought into the Finance Act 2017 6.2. An amendment was also brought into the Finance Act 2017 6.2. An amendment was also brought into the Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017. Prior w.e.f. 01.04.2017. Prior to this amendment, the relevant portion to this amendment, the relevant portion stood as under: stood as under:- Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or sing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or sing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the determination of the total income of such other person for the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub- section (1) of section 153A." tion 153A." 6.3 After the amendment 6.3 After the amendment and w.e.f. 01.04.2017, the corresponding and w.e.f. 01.04.2017, the corresponding relevant portion reads as under: relevant portion reads as under:- ..that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other ..that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other ..that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six determination of the total income of such other person for six determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year years immediately preceding the assessment year years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A." 6.4. Thus, the period for whic 6.4. Thus, the period for which Section 153C proceedings can be h Section 153C proceedings can be done has undergone a change and reference had been drawn to done has undergone a change and reference had been drawn to done has undergone a change and reference had been drawn to the "previous year in which search is conducted.". This terminology the "previous year in which search is conducted.". This terminology the "previous year in which search is conducted.". This terminology is unique and the amendment clearly suggest that the years of is unique and the amendment clearly suggest that the years of is unique and the amendment clearly suggest that the years of assessment has undergone a chang assessment has undergone a change as compared to the earlier e as compared to the earlier provision. 6.5. In the present case, the search action was carried out on 6.5. In the present case, the search action was carried out on 6.5. In the present case, the search action was carried out on 06.03.2018. Thus, the contentions of the appellant do not hold 06.03.2018. Thus, the contentions of the appellant do not hold 06.03.2018. Thus, the contentions of the appellant do not hold good in any manner. The fourth proviso to S.153(1) states that in good in any manner. The fourth proviso to S.153(1) states that in good in any manner. The fourth proviso to S.153(1) states that in respect of periods beyon respect of periods beyond 6 but not later than 10 AYs, the income d 6 but not later than 10 AYs, the income which has escaped assessment is Rs.50 lakhs or more in which has escaped assessment is Rs.50 lakhs or more in which has escaped assessment is Rs.50 lakhs or more in aggregate. The AO has validly initiated the proceedings u/s 153C aggregate. The AO has validly initiated the proceedings u/s 153C aggregate. The AO has validly initiated the proceedings u/s 153C
Babulal Mulchand Varma Babulal & 3148/MUM/2025 of the Act. Accordingly, the Additional Ground of the appellant of the Act. Accordingly, the Additional Ground of the appellant of the Act. Accordingly, the Additional Ground of the appellant stands DISMISSED. stands DISMISSED.” 7.3 On perusal of the above, we find that the assessee before the sal of the above, we find that the assessee before the sal of the above, we find that the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Ojjus Medicare P. L the case of PCIT v. Ojjus Medicare P. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101 td. (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Delhi). But the Ld. CIT(A) however But the Ld. CIT(A) however rejected the contention of the rejected the contention of the assessee.
7.4 We find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the We find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the We find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT v. Amol assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Awasthi(supra) has categorically held that, for the purposes of has categorically held that, for the purposes of has categorically held that, for the purposes of section 153C read with section 153A of the Act, the relevant block section 153C read with section 153A of the Act, the relevant block section 153C read with section 153A of the Act, the relevant block of assessment years is required to be computed from the end of the of assessment years is required to be computed from the end of the of assessment years is required to be computed from the end of the assessment year in which the satisfaction note under section 153C assessment year in which the satisfaction note under section 153C assessment year in which the satisfaction note under section 153C is recorded. The said decision follows the earlier judgment in Ojjus is recorded. The said decision follows the earlier judgment in is recorded. The said decision follows the earlier judgment in Medicare Pvt. Ltd.(supra) Medicare Pvt. Ltd.(supra), which is founded upon the , which is founded upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is reproduced as under: Delhi High Court is reproduced as under: “6. The Assessee filed his return of income for AY 2012 The Assessee filed his return of income for AY 2012 The Assessee filed his return of income for AY 2012-13 on 24.09.2012 declaring an income of Rs.10,03,030/ 24.09.2012 declaring an income of Rs.10,03,030/ 24.09.2012 declaring an income of Rs.10,03,030/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. On was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. On was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. On 30.06.2019, a search was conducted in the case of one Sh. 30.06.2019, a search was conducted in the case of one Sh. 30.06.2019, a search was conducted in the case of one Sh. Sanjay Jain. The Assessee was also Sanjay Jain. The Assessee was also considered one of the considered one of the searched persons and accordingly, a notice under Section searched persons and accordingly, a notice under Section searched persons and accordingly, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued. While the proceedings pursuant 153A of the Act was issued. While the proceedings pursuant 153A of the Act was issued. While the proceedings pursuant to the notice issued under Section 153A were pending, the to the notice issued under Section 153A were pending, the to the notice issued under Section 153A were pending, the Assessing Officer [AO] exercising jurisdiction in case of t Assessing Officer [AO] exercising jurisdiction in case of t Assessing Officer [AO] exercising jurisdiction in case of the Assessee received information that a search had been Assessee received information that a search had been Assessee received information that a search had been conducted on 30.06.2019 under Section 132 of the Act in the conducted on 30.06.2019 under Section 132 of the Act in the conducted on 30.06.2019 under Section 132 of the Act in the case relating to one Sh. Rajiv Saxena. The AO exercising case relating to one Sh. Rajiv Saxena. The AO exercising case relating to one Sh. Rajiv Saxena. The AO exercising
Babulal Mulchand Varma Babulal & 3148/MUM/2025 jurisdiction in the case of the searched person (Sh. Rajiv jurisdiction in the case of the searched person (Sh. Rajiv jurisdiction in the case of the searched person (Sh. Rajiv Saxena), recorded a sati Saxena), recorded a satisfaction note stating that the sfaction note stating that the documents or material unearthed during the said search documents or material unearthed during the said search documents or material unearthed during the said search belonged to the Assessee or contained information pertaining belonged to the Assessee or contained information pertaining belonged to the Assessee or contained information pertaining to the Assessee. to the Assessee.
7. In view of the above, the AO dropped the proceedings 7. In view of the above, the AO dropped the proceedings 7. In view of the above, the AO dropped the proceedings initiated against the Assessee unde initiated against the Assessee under Section 153A of the Act r Section 153A of the Act under the process of initiating fresh proceedings under Section under the process of initiating fresh proceedings under Section under the process of initiating fresh proceedings under Section 153C of the Act. However, in the meanwhile, searches were 153C of the Act. However, in the meanwhile, searches were 153C of the Act. However, in the meanwhile, searches were also conducted on 18.10.2019 in cases relating to Alankit also conducted on 18.10.2019 in cases relating to Alankit also conducted on 18.10.2019 in cases relating to Alankit Group. The AO exercising jurisdiction in respect o Group. The AO exercising jurisdiction in respect o Group. The AO exercising jurisdiction in respect of such searched person also recorded his satisfaction that the searched person also recorded his satisfaction that the searched person also recorded his satisfaction that the materials found during the search belonged to or contained materials found during the search belonged to or contained materials found during the search belonged to or contained information pertaining to the Assessee. information pertaining to the Assessee.
In view of the above, the AO issued the notice dated 8. In view of the above, the AO issued the notice dated 8. In view of the above, the AO issued the notice dated 29.09.2021 under Section 153C of the 29.09.2021 under Section 153C of the Act requiring the Act requiring the Assessee to file his return of income for the relevant Assessee to file his return of income for the relevant Assessee to file his return of income for the relevant assessment year. assessment year.
9. In response to the said notice issued under Section 153C of 9. In response to the said notice issued under Section 153C of 9. In response to the said notice issued under Section 153C of the Act, the Assessee filed his return of income on 20.12.2021 the Act, the Assessee filed his return of income on 20.12.2021 the Act, the Assessee filed his return of income on 20.12.2021 declaring an income of Rs.10,03,030/ declaring an income of Rs.10,03,030/- as originally issued. s originally issued. The said proceedings culminated in the draft assessment The said proceedings culminated in the draft assessment The said proceedings culminated in the draft assessment order order order dated dated dated 31.03.2023 31.03.2023 31.03.2023 making making making certain certain certain additions additions additions on on on protective basis. protective basis.
10. Being aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the 10. Being aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the 10. Being aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the Assessee filed his objections before the learned DRP. Assessee filed his objections before the learned DRP. Assessee filed his objections before the learned DRP. The learned DRP, by an order dated 28.12.2023, rejected the learned DRP, by an order dated 28.12.2023, rejected the learned DRP, by an order dated 28.12.2023, rejected the objections raised by the Assessee and upheld the view taken objections raised by the Assessee and upheld the view taken objections raised by the Assessee and upheld the view taken by the AO in the draft assessment order. by the AO in the draft assessment order.
Pursuant to the directions issued by the learned DRP, the 11. Pursuant to the directions issued by the learned DRP, the 11. Pursuant to the directions issued by the learned DRP, the AO passed a final assessment ord AO passed a final assessment order dated 30.01.2024 under er dated 30.01.2024 under Sections 144C and 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Act. Sections 144C and 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Act. Sections 144C and 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Act.
The Assessee appealed the said assessment order before 12. The Assessee appealed the said assessment order before 12. The Assessee appealed the said assessment order before the learned ITAT, which was allowed. The learned ITAT, the learned ITAT, which was allowed. The learned ITAT, the learned ITAT, which was allowed. The learned ITAT, following the decision of this Court in Pr. CIT (Centra following the decision of this Court in Pr. CIT (Centra following the decision of this Court in Pr. CIT (Central-1) v. Ojjus Ojjus Ojjus Medicare Medicare Medicare (P.) (P.) (P.) Ltd. Ltd. Ltd. : : : Neutral Neutral Neutral Citation Citation Citation No.: No.: No.: 2024:DHC:2629 2024:DHC:2629-DB/[2024] 161 taxmann.com 160/465 ITR [2024] 161 taxmann.com 160/465 ITR 101 (Delhi) held that AY 2012 held that AY 2012-13 falls outside the block of ten 13 falls outside the block of ten assessment years, which could be reopened pursuan assessment years, which could be reopened pursuan assessment years, which could be reopened pursuant to a Babulal Mulchand Varma Babulal & 3148/MUM/2025
notice issued under Section 153C of the Act. Concededly, in notice issued under Section 153C of the Act. Concededly, in notice issued under Section 153C of the Act. Concededly, in terms of the said decision, the block of ten years for which terms of the said decision, the block of ten years for which terms of the said decision, the block of ten years for which assessments could be reopened is required to be construed assessments could be reopened is required to be construed assessments could be reopened is required to be construed from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the satisfaction note under Section 153C of the which the satisfaction note under Section 153C of the which the satisfaction note under Section 153C of the Act was recorded by the AO. As noted above, in the present Act was recorded by the AO. As noted above, in the present Act was recorded by the AO. As noted above, in the present case, the AO had recorded its satisfaction note under Section case, the AO had recorded its satisfaction note under Section case, the AO had recorded its satisfaction note under Section 153C of the Act on 29.09.2021 and therefore, the period of ten 153C of the Act on 29.09.2021 and therefore, the period of ten 153C of the Act on 29.09.2021 and therefore, the period of ten years for which th years for which the assessments could be reopened under e assessments could be reopened under Section 153C of the Act read with Section 153A of the Act are Section 153C of the Act read with Section 153A of the Act are Section 153C of the Act read with Section 153A of the Act are required to be reckoned from the end of the AY 2022 required to be reckoned from the end of the AY 2022 required to be reckoned from the end of the AY 2022-23.” 7.5 The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Ashok Khandelwal v. Ashok Khandelwal v. Union of India & Ors. Union of India & Ors. has also examined the identical issue and has also examined the identical issue and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra). A of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra). After considering the statutory fter considering the statutory framework and the binding precedents, framework and the binding precedents, the Hon’ble Bombay High the Hon’ble Bombay High Court affirmed that the reference point for computation of the block d that the reference point for computation of the block d that the reference point for computation of the block period under section 153C of the Act is the date of recording of period under section 153C of the Act is the date of recording of period under section 153C of the Act is the date of recording of satisfaction and transfer of material to the Assessing Officer of the satisfaction and transfer of material to the Assessing Officer of the satisfaction and transfer of material to the Assessing Officer of the non-searched searched person. person. The The relevant relevant finding of the finding of the Hon’ble Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court is reproduced as under: tional High Court is reproduced as under:
“12. Thus, the issue in the present Petition is narrow and is 12. Thus, the issue in the present Petition is narrow and is 12. Thus, the issue in the present Petition is narrow and is limited to the computation of the relevant assessment year as limited to the computation of the relevant assessment year as limited to the computation of the relevant assessment year as given in Explanation 1 of given in Explanation 1 of Section 153A of the Act, for which an of the Act, for which an assessment order can be made under assessment order can be made under Section 153C Section 153C of the Act.
This issue came for consideration before the Hon'ble 13. This issue came for consideration before the Hon'ble 13. This issue came for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court in the case of Jasjit Singh (supra). The issue (supra). The issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case was whether the before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case was whether the before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case was whether the period of issuance of notice under period of issuance of notice under Section 153C Section 153C should commence: (a) only from the commence: (a) only from the date the materials were date the materials were forwarded to the Assessing Officer of the third party; or (b) forwarded to the Assessing Officer of the third party; or (b) forwarded to the Assessing Officer of the third party; or (b) from the date the search and seizure proceedings were from the date the search and seizure proceedings were from the date the search and seizure proceedings were conducted, in respect of the main assessee under conducted, in respect of the main assessee under conducted, in respect of the main assessee under Section 132.
Babulal Mulchand Varma Babulal & 3148/MUM/2025 This has been set out in paragraph 4 of the judgment, which his has been set out in paragraph 4 of the judgment, which his has been set out in paragraph 4 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereunder: is reproduced hereunder:- "4. Notice was issued by the concerned jurisdictional "4. Notice was issued by the concerned jurisdictional "4. Notice was issued by the concerned jurisdictional A.Os. to the said assessees who contended that the A.Os. to the said assessees who contended that the A.Os. to the said assessees who contended that the period for which they were required to file returns, period for which they were required to file returns, period for which they were required to file returns, commenced on commenced only from the date the materials were ly from the date the materials were forwarded to their A.Os. The Revenue, on the other forwarded to their A.Os. The Revenue, on the other forwarded to their A.Os. The Revenue, on the other hand, urged that the date (relatable to the period for hand, urged that the date (relatable to the period for hand, urged that the date (relatable to the period for which six years returns were to be filed by the which six years returns were to be filed by the which six years returns were to be filed by the assessee) was to be from the date when the search and assessee) was to be from the date when the search and assessee) was to be from the date when the search and seizure proc seizure proceedings were conducted, in respect of the eedings were conducted, in respect of the main assessee under main assessee under Section 132."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said judgment the said judgment, held that the time period for issuing notice under that the time period for issuing notice under Section 153C Section 153C should commence from the end of the Assessment Year in should commence from the end of the Assessment Year in should commence from the end of the Assessment Year in which the records are transferred to the Assessing Officer of which the records are transferred to the Assessing Officer of which the records are transferred to the Assessing Officer of the third party by the third party by the Assessing Officer of the searched party. the Assessing Officer of the searched party. The relevant portion of the judgment which is reproduced The relevant portion of the judgment which is reproduced The relevant portion of the judgment which is reproduced hereunder:- "9. It is evident on a plain interpretation of Section "9. It is evident on a plain interpretation of "9. It is evident on a plain interpretation of 153C(1) 153C(1) that the Parliamentary intent to enact the tent to enact the proviso was to cater not merely to the question of proviso was to cater not merely to the question of proviso was to cater not merely to the question of abatement but also with regard to the date from which abatement but also with regard to the date from which abatement but also with regard to the date from which the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of which the returns were to be filed by the third party which the returns were to be filed by the third party which the returns were to be filed by the third party (whose premises are not s (whose premises are not searched and in respect of earched and in respect of whom the specific provision under whom the specific provision under Section 153 Section 153-C was enacted. The revenue argued that the proviso [to Section enacted. The revenue argued that the proviso [to enacted. The revenue argued that the proviso [to 153(c)(1) 153(c)(1)] is confined in its application to the question of nfined in its application to the question of abatement. abatement.
10. This Court is of the opinion that the revenue's 10. This Court is of the opinion that the revenue's 10. This Court is of the opinion that the revenue's argument is insubstantial and without merit. It is quite argument is insubstantial and without merit. It is quite argument is insubstantial and without merit. It is quite plausible that without the kind of interpretation which plausible that without the kind of interpretation which plausible that without the kind of interpretation which SSP Aviation adopted, the A.O. sei SSP Aviation adopted, the A.O. seized of the materials zed of the materials - of the search party, under of the search party, under Section 132 - would take his would take his own time to forward the papers and materials belonging own time to forward the papers and materials belonging own time to forward the papers and materials belonging to the third party, to the concerned A.O. In that event if to the third party, to the concerned A.O. In that event if to the third party, to the concerned A.O. In that event if the date wo the date would virtually "relate back" as is sought to be uld virtually "relate back" as is sought to be contended by the revenue, (to the date of the seizure), contended by the revenue, (to the date of the seizure), contended by the revenue, (to the date of the seizure), the prejudice caused to the third party, who would be the prejudice caused to the third party, who would be the prejudice caused to the third party, who would be drawn into proceedings as it were unwittingly (and in drawn into proceedings as it were unwittingly (and in drawn into proceedings as it were unwittingly (and in Babulal Mulchand Varma Babulal & 3148/MUM/2025 many cases have no concern with it at all), is dis- many cases have no concern with it at all), i many cases have no concern with it at all), i proportionate. For instance, if the papers are in fact proportionate. For instance, if the papers are in fact proportionate. For instance, if the papers are in fact assigned under assigned under Section 153-C after a period of four after a period of four years, the third party assessee's prejudice is writ large years, the third party assessee's prejudice is writ large years, the third party assessee's prejudice is writ large as it would have to virtually p as it would have to virtually preserve the records for at reserve the records for at latest 10 years which is not the requirement in law. latest 10 years which is not the requirement in law. latest 10 years which is not the requirement in law. Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be attributed to Parliament. On the other hand, a plain attributed to Parliament. On the other hand, a plain attributed to Parliament. On the other hand, a plain reading of reading of Section 153-C supports the interpretation supports the interpretation which this Court adopts." which this Court adopts."
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 15. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in its elaborate judgment, has taken the same (supra) in its elaborate judgment, has taken the same (supra) in its elaborate judgment, has taken the same view following t view following the above referred decision of the Hon'ble he above referred decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case before the Hon'ble Delhi High Supreme Court. In the case before the Hon'ble Delhi High Supreme Court. In the case before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the issue was identical to the present Petition. In that Court, the issue was identical to the present Petition. In that Court, the issue was identical to the present Petition. In that case also the searched party was the Alankit Group of case also the searched party was the Alankit Group of case also the searched party was the Alankit Group of Companies, i.e. same as that of the Pet Companies, i.e. same as that of the Petitioner. The documents itioner. The documents and records seized from the premises of the Alankit Group of and records seized from the premises of the Alankit Group of and records seized from the premises of the Alankit Group of Companies pertained to the Petitioner therein, M/s Ojjus Companies pertained to the Petitioner therein, M/s Ojjus Companies pertained to the Petitioner therein, M/s Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. Though the search was conducted on the Medicare Pvt. Ltd. Though the search was conducted on the Medicare Pvt. Ltd. Though the search was conducted on the Alankit Group of Companies on 18th October 2019, the noti Alankit Group of Companies on 18th October 2019, the noti Alankit Group of Companies on 18th October 2019, the notice under Section 153C Section 153C was issued after the transfer of records to was issued after the transfer of records to the Assessing Officer of the third party. The question before the Assessing Officer of the third party. The question before the Assessing Officer of the third party. The question before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was at what point of time the the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was at what point of time the the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was at what point of time the limitation for limitation for the issue of notice under Section 153C Section 153C commences. Whether the relevant date commences from the commences. Whether the relevant date commences from the commences. Whether the relevant date commences from the date of search (i.e. 18th October 2019), or the date of transfer date of search (i.e. 18th October 2019), or the date of transfer date of search (i.e. 18th October 2019), or the date of transfer of record to the Assessing Officer of the of record to the Assessing Officer of the third party. In third party. In paragraph 78 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Delhi paragraph 78 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Delhi paragraph 78 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme High Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme High Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Court in the case of Jasjit Singh (supra). Thereafter, the (supra). Thereafter, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court concluded that the period of lhi High Court concluded that the period of lhi High Court concluded that the period of limitation for issuing notice under limitation for issuing notice under Section 153C Section 153C shall commence from the end of the Assessment Year in which commence from the end of the Assessment Year in which commence from the end of the Assessment Year in which records are transferred to the Assessing Officer records are transferred to the Assessing Officer records are transferred to the Assessing Officer of the third party by the Assessing Officer of searched party. The relevant party by the Assessing Officer of searched party. The relevant party by the Assessing Officer of searched party. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "119. We thus record our conclusions as follows: "119. We thus record our conclusions as follows: ...
Babulal Mulchand Varma Babulal & 3148/MUM/2025 D. The First Proviso to D. The First Proviso to section 153C introduces a legal fiction introduces a legal fiction on the basis of which the commencement date for computation on the basis of which the commencement date for computation on the basis of which the commencement date for computation of the six year or the ten year block is deemed to be the date of the six year or the ten year block is deemed to be the date of the six year or the ten year block is deemed to be the date of receipt of books of accounts by the jurisdictional AO. The of receipt of books of accounts by the jurisdictional AO. The of receipt of books of accounts by the jurisdictional AO. The identification of the start identification of the starting block for the purposes of ing block for the purposes of computation of the six and the ten year period is governed by computation of the six and the ten year period is governed by computation of the six and the ten year period is governed by the First Proviso to the First Proviso to Section 153C, which significantly shifts the , which significantly shifts the reference point spoken of in reference point spoken of in section 153A(1), while defining , while defining the point from which the period of the "relevant assessment the point from which the period of the "relevant assessment the point from which the period of the "relevant assessment year" is to be calculated, to the date of receipt of the books of year" is to be calculated, to the date of receipt of the books of year" is to be calculated, to the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized by the jurisdictional accounts, documents or assets seized by the jurisdictional accounts, documents or assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. The shift of the relevant date in searched person. The shift of the relevant date in searched person. The shift of the relevant date in the case of a non the case of a non-searched person being regulated by the First searched person being regulated by the First Proviso of Section 153C(1) Section 153C(1) is an issue which is no longer res is an issue which is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively settled by virtue of the integra and stands authoritatively settled by virtue of the integra and stands authoritatively settled by virtue of the decisions of this Court in SSP Aviation and RRJ Securities as decisions of this Court in SSP Aviation and RRJ Securities as decisions of this Court in SSP Aviation and RRJ Securities as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasjit Singh. The well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasjit Singh. The well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasjit Singh. The aforesaid legal position also stood aforesaid legal position also stood reiterated by the Supreme reiterated by the Supreme Court in Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia. The submission of the Court in Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia. The submission of the Court in Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia. The submission of the respondents, therefore, that the block periods would have to respondents, therefore, that the block periods would have to respondents, therefore, that the block periods would have to be reckoned with reference to the date of search can neither be reckoned with reference to the date of search can neither be reckoned with reference to the date of search can neither be countenanced nor accepted. be countenanced nor accepted. ...
In view o 120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petitions f the aforesaid discussion, the writ petitions placed in Lists I and II and pertaining to AYs' 2010 placed in Lists I and II and pertaining to AYs' 2010 placed in Lists I and II and pertaining to AYs' 2010- 11, 2011- 12, 2012-13 and 2013 13 and 2013-14, all of which fall beyond the 14, all of which fall beyond the maximum ten year block period shall stand allowed. The maximum ten year block period shall stand allowed. The maximum ten year block period shall stand allowed. The impugned notices pertaining to the af impugned notices pertaining to the aforenoted AYs' shall orenoted AYs' shall consequently stand quashed." consequently stand quashed."
In the facts of the present case, admittedly, the impugned 16. In the facts of the present case, admittedly, the impugned 16. In the facts of the present case, admittedly, the impugned notice issued by Respondent No.2 under notice issued by Respondent No.2 under Section 153C Section 153C of the Act pertains to Assessment Yea Act pertains to Assessment Year 2011-12, which is beyond 12, which is beyond the maximum period of 10 years as mandated under the maximum period of 10 years as mandated under the maximum period of 10 years as mandated under Section 153C. Finding that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition . Finding that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition . Finding that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions, we al is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions, we al is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions, we allow the above Writ Petition in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c), which above Writ Petition in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c), which above Writ Petition in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c), which read thus:- "(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of "(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of "(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ under other appropriate writ under Article 226 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for records pertaining to the Constitution of India, calling for records pertaining to the Constitution of India, calling for records pertaining to the Babulal Mulchand Varma Babulal & 3148/MUM/2025
impugned notice issued by the Respondent No.2 u/s impugned notice issued by the Respondent No.2 impugned notice issued by the Respondent No.2 153C of the Act dated 01.11.2022 for the AY 20 of the Act dated 01.11.2022 for the AY 2011-12 (being Exhibit 'B' hereto) and after going into the validity (being Exhibit 'B' hereto) and after going into the validity (being Exhibit 'B' hereto) and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the same. and legality thereof to quash and set aside the same. and legality thereof to quash and set aside the same. (c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of (c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of (c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate wr other appropriate writ under Article 226 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for records pertaining to the Constitution of India, calling for records pertaining to the Constitution of India, calling for records pertaining to the impugned notice issued by the Respondent No.3 u/s impugned notice issued by the Respondent No.3 impugned notice issued by the Respondent No.3 142(1) 142(1) of the Act dated 05.12.2022 for the AY 2011 Act dated 05.12.2022 for the AY 2011-12 (being Exhibit 'C' hereto) and after going into the validity (being Exhibit 'C' hereto) and after going into the validity (being Exhibit 'C' hereto) and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the same." and legality thereof to quash and set aside the same." and legality thereof to quash and set aside the same." 7.6 In view of the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court on the In view of the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court on the In view of the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court on the issue in dispute, which is a b which is a binding precedent, we set aside the inding precedent, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) finding of the Ld. CIT(A).
7.7 Applying the aforesaid legal position to the facts of the present Applying the aforesaid legal position to the facts of the present Applying the aforesaid legal position to the facts of the present case, we hold that since the satisfaction under section 153C of the case, we hold that since the satisfaction under section 153C of the case, we hold that since the satisfaction under section 153C of the Act was recorded during the financial year 2021 Act was recorded during the financial year 2021-22, the 22, the block of ten assessment years would extend only up to assessment year 2012- assessment years would extend only up to assessment year 2012 assessment years would extend only up to assessment year 2012 13. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings under section 153C 13. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings under section 153C 13. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Act for assessment years falling beyond assessment year of the Act for assessment years falling beyond assessment year of the Act for assessment years falling beyond assessment year 2012-13 is without jurisdiction. 13 is without jurisdiction. ent years involved in the present two appeals 8. As the assessm As the assessment years involved in the present two appeals fall outside the permissible block of ten assessment years, the fall outside the permissible block of ten assessment years, the fall outside the permissible block of ten assessment years, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act is assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act is assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the assessments framed for the unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the assessments framed for the unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the assessments framed for the years under consider years under consideration are hereby quashed.
Babulal Mulchand Varma Babulal & 3148/MUM/2025
In view of our decision on the jurisdictional issue, the grounds In view of our decision on the jurisdictional issue, the grounds In view of our decision on the jurisdictional issue, the grounds raised by the assessee on merits are rendered academic and do not raised by the assessee on merits are rendered academic and do not raised by the assessee on merits are rendered academic and do not require adjudication. require adjudication.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 22/01/2026. /01/2026.