THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL-1 vs. OJJUS MEDICARE PVT. LTD.

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 1 of 179

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Judgment reserved on: 22 February, 2024 Judgment pronounced on: 03 April, 2024

+ ITA 52/2024

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL-1

..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Ms. Deeksha Gupta, Adv.

versus

OJJUS MEDICARE PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 3714/2023 & CM APPL. 14341/2023 (Interim Relief)

ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA

..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 17, & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC.

+ W.P.(C) 3907/2023 & CM APPLs. 15158/2023 (Stay) and 62298/2023

VINEETA GUPTA

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 2 of 179

Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 46(4) DELHI AND ANR

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 333/2024 & CM APPL. 1511/2024 (Interim Relief)

KAPAREVA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 28, DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 334/2024 & CM APPL. 1514/2024 (Interim Relief)

KAPAREVA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 28, DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 3 of 179

Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 335/2024 & CM APPL. 1519/2024 (Interim Relief)

KAPAREVA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 28, DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 4784/2023 & CM APPL. 18488/2023 (Stay)

ALANKIT INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 4 of 179

+ W.P.(C) 4836/2023 & CM APPL. 18693/2023 (Stay)

ALANKIT FINSEC LIMITED

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

Mr. Vikas Pahwa, SSC with Mr. Prabhav Palli, Ms. Nimisha Jain, Mr. Aditya Shukla and Mr. Kushal Gupta, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28 DELHI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 4944/2023 & CM APPL. 19152/2023 (Stay)

NEW WAVE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 18(3), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 5 of 179

Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 4993/2023 & CM APPL. 19488/2023 (Stay)

VINEETA GUPTA

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 46(4 )& ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5128/2023 & CM APPL. 20044/2023 (Stay)

SHASHI GARG

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 6 of 179

+ W.P.(C) 5130/2023 & CM APPL. 20048/2023 (Stay)

VINOD KUMAR GARG

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5150/2023 & CM APPL. 20099/2023 (Stay)

NEW WAVE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5181/2023 & CM APPL. 20217/2023 (Stay)

ALANKIT INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 7 of 179

Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5182/2023 & CM APPL. 20219/2023 (Stay)

ALANKIT INSURANCE TPA LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5215/2023 & CM APPL. 20383/2023 (Stay)

VINOD KUMAR GARG

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 8 of 179

Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5216/2023 & CM APPL. 20385/2023 (Stay)

ALKA AGARWAL

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL

CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv..

+ W.P.(C) 5217/2023 & CM APPL. 20387/2023 (Stay)

VIKAS SURYA DEVELOPERS PRIAVTE LIMITED

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 9 of 179

Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL

CIRCLE-28, DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Mr. Aditya Gupta & Ms. Nivedita, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5224/2023 & CM APPL. 20409/2023 (Stay)

ALKA AGARWAL

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL

CIRCLE-28, DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 5236/2023 & CM APPL. 20429/2023 (Stay)

ALANKIT FOREX INDIA LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 10 of 179

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5240/2023 & CM APPL. 20469/2023 (Stay)

TINA ORGANICS PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5249/2023 & CM APPL. 20484/2023 (Stay)

PRATISHTHA IMAGES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 11 of 179

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28 DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5252/2023 & CM APPL. 20552/2023 (Stay)

ALANKIT FINSEC LIMITED

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5368/2023 & CM APPL. 20965/2023 (Stay)

TINA ORGANICS PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28

..... Respondent Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 12 of 179

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5370/2023 & CM APPL. 20969/2023 (Stay)

ALANKIT FOREX INDIA LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC

Mr. Parth Semwal, JSC.

+ W.P.(C) 5626/2023 & CM APPL. 22083/2023 (Stay)

PRATISHTHA IMAGES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28 DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 13 of 179

Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5976/2023 & CM APPL. 23470/2023 (Stay)

MOHAN KUMAR GARG

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5643/2023 & CM APPL. 22123/2023 (Stay)

ALANKIT INSURANCE TPA LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 14 of 179

Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5662/2023 & CM APPL. 22160/2023 (Stay)

TARUN KUMAR SAHAY

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5789/2023 & CM APPL. 22664/2023 (Stay)

VIKAS PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs. Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 15 of 179

+ W.P.(C) 5790/2023 & CM APPL. 22666/2023 (Stay)

VINOD KUMAR MAHESHWARI

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 5794/2023 & CM APPL. 22676/2023 (Stay)

VINOD KUMAR MAHESHWARI

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 16 of 179

+ W.P.(C) 6160/2023 & CM APPL. 24242/2023 (Stay)

SHANTI KUMAR AGARWAL HUF ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 6260/2023 & CM APPL. 24598/2023 (Stay)

VIKAS PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 6284/2023 & CM APPL. 24651/2023 (Stay) Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 17 of 179

TARUN KUMAR SAHAY

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 6673/2023 & CM APPL. 26129/2023 (Stay)

SAKSHI AGARWAL

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 6962/2023 & CM APPL. 27125/2023 (Stay)

VINEETA GUPTA

..... Petitioner Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 18 of 179

Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 46(4), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7157/2023 & CM APPL. 27900/2023 (Stay)

PRATISHTHA IMAGES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7272/2023 & CM APPL. 28285/2023 (Stay)

ALKA AGARWAL

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 19 of 179

Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL

CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 7279/2023 & CM APPL. 28308/2023 (Stay)

ALANKIT INSURANCE TPA LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7281/2023 & CM APPL. 28310/2023 (Stay)

ALANKIT INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 20 of 179

Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7283/2023 & CM APPL. 28315/2023 (Stay)

ALANKIT FINSEC LIMITED

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7374/2023 & CM APPL. 28728/2023 (Stay)

SHANTI KUMAR AGARWAL HUF ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 21 of 179

Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7401/2023 & CM APPL. 28789/2023 (Stay)

ALANKIT FOREX INDIA LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7821/2023 & CM APPL. 30158/2023 (Stay)

VIVEK GARG

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 22 of 179

Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7822/2023 & CM APPL. 30163/2023 (Stay)

VIVEK GARG

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 9124/2023 & CM APPL. 34707/2023 (Stay)

NEW WAVE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 23 of 179

Kapoor, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 383/2024 & CM APPL. 1782/2024 (Stay)

ANUJ SHARMA

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Wadhwa, Ms. Ragini Handa & Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ORS. ... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 384/2024 & CM APPL. 1784/2024 (Stay)

ANUJ SHARMA

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Wadhwa, Ms. Ragini Handa & Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 24 of 179

+ W.P.(C) 400/2024 & CM APPL. 1814/2024 (Stay)

ANUJ SHARMA

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Wadhwa, Ms. Ragini Handa & Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 457/2024 & CM APPL. 2097/2024 (Stay)

ANKIT AGARWAL -LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHANTI KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 463/2024 & CM APPL. 2104/2024 (Stay)

ANKIT AGARWAL -LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHANTI KUMAR AGGARWAL

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 25 of 179

Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 476/2024 & CM APPL. 2123/2024 (Stay)

SUNOJ ENGINEERS PVT LTD

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 477/2024 & CM APPL. 2125/2024 (Stay)

ANKIT AGARWAL -LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHANTI KUMAR AGGARWAL

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 26 of 179

Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 622/2024 & CM APPL. 2734/2024 (Stay

SAKSHAM INVESTOR SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 22-1, NEW DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, JSC, Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari and Mr. Amaan Ahmed Khan, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 623/2024 & CM APPL. 2736/2024 (Stay)

PACK PLAST -INDIA- PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs. Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 27 of 179

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19-3, DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Mr. Aditya Gupta & Ms. Nivedita, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 627/202 & CM APPL. 2746/2024 (Stay)

SAKSHAM COMMODITIES LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 22-1, NEW DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, JSC, Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari and Mr. Amaan Ahmed Khan, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 630/2024, CM APPL. 2752/2024 (Stay)

PACK PLAST -INDIA- PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 28 of 179

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19-3, DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Mr. Aditya Gupta & Ms. Nivedita, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 639/2024 & CM APPL. 2795/2024 (Stay)

PACK PLAST -INDIA- PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19-3, DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Mr. Aditya Gupta & Ms. Nivedita, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 694/2024 & CM APPL. 3075/2024 (Stay)

SUSHEEL JAIN

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Gautam Jain, Ms. Reeta Chaudhary & Mr. Manish Yadav, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 29 of 179

+ W.P.(C) 697/2024 & CM APPL. 3083/2024 (Stay)

PACK PLAST -INDIA- PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19-3, DELHI AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Mr. Aditya Gupta & Ms. Nivedita, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 704/2024 & CM APPL. 3124/2024 (Stay)

SUNOJ ENGINEERS PVT LTD

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 728/2024 & CM APPL. 3204/2024 (Interim Relief)

VIKAS WAHI

..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 30 of 179

Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 26, DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 731/2024 & CM APPL. 3210/2024 (Interim Relief)

VIKAS WAHI

..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 26, DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 733/2024 & CM APPL. 3213/2024 (Interim Relief)

VIKAS WAHI

..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 26, DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr. Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 31 of 179

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 734/2024 & CM APPL. 3218/2024 (Interim Relief)

VIKAS WAHI

..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 26, DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel and Ms. Nupur

Sharma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 794/2024 & CM APPL. 3428/2024 (Stay)

JAGMOHAN KEJRIWAL

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 62(1), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Gibran Naushad & Ms. Sakshi Shairwal, JSCs.

+ W.P.(C) 795/2024 & CM APPL. 3430/2024 (Stay)

JAGMOHAN KEJRIWAL

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 32 of 179

Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 62(1), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Gibran Naushad & Ms. Sakshi Shairwal, JSCs.

+ W.P.(C) 824/2024 & CM APPL. 3522/2024 (Stay)

JAGMOHAN KEJRIWAL

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 62(1), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Gibran Naushad & Ms. Sakshi Shairwal, JSCs.

+ W.P.(C) 826/2024 & CM APPL. 3525/2024 (Stay)

JAGMOHAN KEJRIWAL

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 33 of 179

Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 62(1), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Gibran Naushad & Ms. Sakshi Shairwal, JSCs.

+ W.P.(C) 829/2024 & CM APPL. 3530/2024 (Interim Relief)

MAMTA AGARWAL

..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 28 DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 861/2024 & CM APPL. 3626/2024 (Interim Relief)

MAMTA AGARWAL

..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 28 DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 34 of 179

+ W.P.(C) 873/2024 & CM APPL. 3649/2024 (Interim Relief)

MAMTA AGARWAL

..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 28 DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 991/2024 & CM APPL. 4112/2024 (Interim Relief)

ASHUTOSH AGARWAL

..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 28 DELHI ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 1018/2024 & CM APPL. 4234/2024 (Interim Relief)

ASHUTOSH AGARWAL

..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 35 of 179

(CENTRAL CIRCLE) 28 DELHI ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 1025/2024 & CM APPL. 4247/2024 (Interim Relief)

ASHUTOSH AGARWAL

..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28,

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Ujjwal Jain and Mr. Shashank Kesarwami, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 1049/2024 & CM APPL. 4406/2024 (Interim Relief)

INDO GREENFUEL PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI & ORS .... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 1050/2024 & CM APPL. 4408/2024 (Interim Relief)

INDO GREENFUEL PVT LTD

..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 36 of 179

Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 28 DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 1063/2024 & CM APPL. 4435/2024 (Interim Relief)

BETSY GROWTH FINANCE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28 & ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 1071/2024 & CM APPL. 4448/2024 (Stay)

SUBODH KANT SAHAY HUF

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(1) DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 37 of 179

Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 1072/2024 & CM APPL. 4451/2024 (Stay)

SUBODH KANT SAHAY HUF

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(1), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 1073/2024 & CM APPL. 4453/2024 (Stay)

SUBODH KANT SAHAY HUF

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(1) DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 38 of 179

Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 1074/2024 & CM APPL. 4455/2024 (Stay)

SUBODH KANT SAHAY HUF

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(1) DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Puneet Singhal, JSCs and Ms. Mahima Garg, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 1110/2024 & CM APPL. 4682/2024 (Interim Relief)

NARESH MITTAL

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Mr. Nischay Kantoor, Ms. Soniya Dodeja & Mr. Animesh Tripathi, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 43(6) DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, JSC, Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari and Mr. Amaan Ahmed Khan, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 1113/2024 & CM APPL. 4688/2024 (Interim Relief)

NARESH MITTAL

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Mr. Nischay Kantoor, Ms. Soniya Dodeja & Mr. Animesh Tripathi, Advs. Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 39 of 179

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 43(6) DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, JSC & Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 1206/2024 & CM APPL. 5024/2024 (Stay)

MAHABIR PARSHAD GUPTA

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43(1), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Mr. Aditya Gupta & Ms. Nivedita, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 1207/2024 & CM APPL. 5026/2024 (Stay)

MAHABIR PARSHAD GUPTA

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43(1), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 40 of 179

Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Mr. Aditya Gupta & Ms. Nivedita, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 1208/2024 & CM APPL. 5028/2024 (Stay)

MAHABIR PARSHAD GUPTA

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43(1), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Mr. Aditya Gupta & Ms. Nivedita, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 1209/2024 & CM APPL. 5030/2024 (Stay)

MAHABIR PARSHAD GUPTA

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43-1, NEW DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Mr. Aditya Gupta & Ms. Nivedita, Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 41 of 179

Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 1212/2024 & CM APPL. 5047/2024 (stay)

TARUN KUMAR SAHA Y HUF

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 43-1, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, JSC, Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari and Mr. Amaan Ahmed Khan, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 1213/2024 & CM APPL. 5049/2024 (Stay)

TARUN KUMAR SAHAY HUF

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 43(1), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, JSC, Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari and Mr. Amaan Ahmed Khan, Advs.

Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 42 of 179

+ W.P.(C) 1214/2024 & CM APPL. 5051/2024 (Stay)

TARUN KUMAR SAHAY HUF

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Tarun Chanana, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Vibhu Jain, Mr. Utkarsa Kr. Gupta, Mr. Amandeep Mehta & Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 43(1), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, JSC, Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari and Mr. Amaan Ahmed Khan, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV J U D G M E N T

YASHWANT

VARMA, J. S. No. Particulars Paragraph Nos. A. INTRODUCTION 1 - 6 B. BROAD FACTUAL MATRIX 7 - 15 C. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

16 - 37 D. THE STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS

38 - 50 E. ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 51 - 74 F. IDENTIFICATION OF THE COMMENCEMENT POINT FOR THE 75 - 85 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 43 of 179

PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF THE SIX AND TEN YEAR BLOCK G. COMPUTATION OF THE SIX AND TEN YEAR BLOCK IN THE PRESENT BATCH OF WRIT PETITIONS 86 - 98 H. THRESHOLDS AS PER THE FOURTH PROVISO OF SECTION 153A 99 - 102 I. ISSUE OF FINALITY/CLOSURE FOR AYs’ 2010-11 AND 2011-12 AND THE APPLICABILTY OF THE 2017 AMENDING ACT 103 - 116 J. DECISION ON ITA 52/2024 117 - 118 K. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 119 L. DISPOSTIF

120 - 123

A. INTRODUCTION

1 Act immediately preceding the AY relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted or requisition made. The petitioners additionally impugn the manner in which the respondents have reckoned the years which would be included within the phrase “relevant assessment year” as defined by Explanation 1 to Section 153A(1) of the Act. 2 AYs Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 44 of 179

3 AO 4 2017 Amending Act Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 45 of 179

Lalchandani and Ms. Ananya Kapoor, learned counsels for the petitioners, in classifying individual matters into three broad categories and thus enabling the Court to take up this batch for expeditious disposal. 4. List I, which is reproduced hereinbelow, covers cases in which the Satisfaction Note, as drawn by the AO of the “other person”, was recorded between 01 April 2021 to 31 March 2022. The list also covers cases where although the Satisfaction Note may not have been available on record, the Section 153C notice was admittedly issued during the said period, namely, 01 April 2021 – 31 March 2022. Petitioner Name

WP(C) AY Date of Satisfaction note by Assessing Officer of the searched person Date of Satisfaction note by Assessing Officer of the non- searched person Date of Section 153C notice Vineeta Gupta 3907/2023 2010- 11 Undated (Annexure P 16)

17.03.2022 (Annexure P 13) 23.03.2022 (Annexure P 2) Alankit Insurance Brokers Ltd. 4784/2023 2010- 11 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 5) 28.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Alankit Finsec Ltd. 4836/2023 2010- 11 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 8) 28.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) New Wave Realtor Pvt. Ltd. 4944/2023 2010- 11 14.02.2022 (Annexure P 16) 25.02.2022 (Annexure P 8) 25.02.2022 (Annexure P 4) Vineeta Gupta 4993/2023 2011- 12 Undated (Annexure P 16) 17.03.2022 (Annexure P 2) 23.03.2022 (Annexure P 3) Shashi Garg 5128/2023 2010- 11 09.03.2022 (Annexure P 7) 15.03.2022 (Annexure P 11) 15.03.2022 (Annexure P 2) New Wave Realtor Pvt. Ltd. 5150/2023 2011- 12 14.02.2022 (Annexure P 14) 25.02.2022 (Annexure P 6) 25.02.2022 (Annexure P 2) Alankit Insurance 5181/2023 2011- 12 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 28.12.2021 (Annexure P Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 46 of 179

Brokers Ltd. 5) 2) Alankit Insurance TPA Ltd. 5182/2023 2011- 12 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 6) 28.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Alka Agarwal 5216/2023 2010- 11 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 7) 30.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Vikas Surya Developers 5217/2023 2011- 12 14.02.2022 (Annexure P 6) 17.02.2022 (Annexure P 6) 22.03.2022 (Annexure P 2) Alka Agarwal 5224/2023 2011- 12 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 8) 30.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Alankit Forex India Pvt. Ltd. 5236/2023 2010- 11 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 7) 28.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Tina Organic Ltd. 5240/2023 2011- 12 Not Provided Not Provided 21.03.2022 Pratishtha Images Ltd. 5249/2023 2011- 12 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 7) 28.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) AlankitFinsec Ltd. 5252/2023 2011- 12 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 7) 28.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Tina Organic Ltd. 5368/2023 2010- 11 Not Provided Not Provided 21.03.2022 Alankit Forex India Pvt. Ltd. 5370/2023 2011- 12 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 6) 28.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Pratishtha Images Ltd. 5626/2023 2010- 11 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 7) 28.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Alankit Insurance TPA Ltd. 5643/2023 2010- 11 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 7) 28.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Tarun Kumar Sahay 5662/2023 2010- 11 20.12.2021 (Annexure P 5) 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 10) 28.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Vikas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 5789/2023 2010- 11 Not Provided 17.02.2022 (Annexure P 9) 22.03.2022 (Annexure P 2) Vinod Maheshwari 5790/2023 2011- 12 10.03.2022 (Annexure P 8) Not Provided 23.03.2022 (Annexure P 2) Vinod Maheshwari 5794/2023 2010- 11 10.03.2022 (Annexure P 7) Not Provided 23.03.2022 (Annexure P 2) Shanti Kumar Aggarwal HUF 6160/2023 2011- 12 Not Provided 28.02.2022 (Annexure P 6) 02.05.2022 (Annexure P 2) Vikas Promoters Pvt. 6260/2023 2011- 12 Not Provided 17.02.2022 (Annexure P 22.03.2022 (Annexure P Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 47 of 179

Ltd. 9) 2) Tarun Kumar Sahay 6284/2023 2011- 12 20.12.2021 (Annexure P 8) 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 9) 28.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Sakshi Agarwal 6673/2023 2012- 13 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 6) 30.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Vineeta Gupta 6962/2023 2012- 13 Undated (Annexure P 10) 17.03.2022 (Annexure P 6) 23.03.2022 (Annexure P 2) Pratishtha Images Ltd. 7157/2023 2012- 13 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 6) 28.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Alka Agarwal 7272/2023 2012- 13 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 5) 30.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Alankit Insurance TPA Limited 7279/2023 2012- 13 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 6) 28.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Alankit Insurance Brokers Ltd. 7281/2023 2012- 13 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 5) 28.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) AlankitFinsec Ltd. 7283/2023 2012- 13 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 5) 28.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Shanti Kumar Agarwal HUF 7374/2023 2012- 13 Not Provided 28.02.2022 (Annexure P 5) 02.05.2022 (Annexure P 2) Alankit Forex India Ltd. 7401/2023 2012- 13 Not Provided 24.12.2021 (Annexure P 7) 28.12.2021 (Annexure P 2) Vivek Garg 7821/2023 2011- 12 Not Provided 11.03.2022 (Annexure P 6) 05.05.2022 (Annexure P 2) Vivek Garg 7822/2023 2010- 11 Not Provided 11.03.2022 (Annexure P 6) 05.05.2022 (Annexure P 2) New Wave Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 9124/2023 2012- 13 14.02.2022 (Annexure P 15) 25.02.2021 (Annexure P 7) 25.02.2022 (Annexure P 2)

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 48 of 179

Petitioner Name

WP(C) AY Date of Satisfaction note by Assessing Officer of the searched person Date of Satisfaction note by Assessing Officer of the non- searched person Date of Section 153C notice Ashwani Kumar Gupta 3714/2023 2010- 11 16.03.2022 (Supplied with Counter Affidavit)

22.06.2022 (Annexure A- 5)

23.06.2022 (Annexure A-2)

Shanti Kumar Aggarwal through Legal Heir Ankit Agarwal 457/2024 2012- 13 10.05.2022 (Annexure P 14) Not Provided 29.06.2022 (Annexure P 9) Shanti Kumar Aggarwal through Legal Heir Ankit Agarwal 463/2024 2013- 14 10.05.2022 (Annexure P 14) Not Provided 29.06.2022 (Annexure P 9) Sunjog Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 476/2024 2010- 11 24.06.2022 (Annexure P 9) 08.08.2022 (Annexure P 13) 24.08.2022 (Annexure P 5) Shanti Kumar Aggarwal through Legal Heir Ankit Agarwal 477/2024 2011- 12 10.05.2022 (Annexure P 14) Not Provided 29.06.2022 (Annexure P 9) Saksham Investors Service Pvt. Ltd. 622/2024 2012- 13 24.06.2022 (Annexure P- 10) 10.08.2022 (Annexure P- 17) 10.08.2022 (Annexure P-7) Pack Plast - India- Private Limited 623/2024 2011- 12 11.05.2022 (Annexure P-9) 01.09.2022 (Annexure P- 10) 01.09.2022 (Annexure P-6) Saksham Commodities Limited 627/2024 2012- 13 24.06.2022 (Annexure P- 10) 10.08.2022 (Annexure P- 17) 10.08.2022 (Annexure P-7) Pack Plast - India- Private Limited 630/2024 2012- 13 11.05.2022 (Annexure P-9) 01.09.2022 (Annexure P- 10) 01.09.2022 (Annexure P-6) Pack Plast - India- Private Limited 639/2024 2013- 14 11.05.2022 (Annexure P-9) 01.09.2022 (Annexure P- 10) 01.09.2022 (Annexure P-6) Pack Plast - India- Private Limited 697/2024 2010- 11 11.05.2022 (Annexure P-9) 01.09.2022 (Annexure P- 10) 01.09.2022 (Annexure P-6) Sunoj 704/2024 2011- 24.06.2022 08.08.2022 24.08.2022 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 49 of 179

Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 12 (Annexure P-9) (Annexure P- 13) (Annexure P-5) Jagmohan Kejriwal 794/2024 2012- 13 20.06.2022 (Annexure P-9) Not Provided 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-6) Jagmohan Kejriwal 795/2024 2011- 12 20.06.2022 (Annexure P-9) Not Provided 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-6) Jagmohan Kejriwal 824/2024 2010- 11 20.06.2022 (Annexure P-9) Not Provided 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-6) Jagmohan Kejriwal 826/2024 2013- 14 (20.06.2022) (Annexure P-9) Not Provided 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-6) Subodh Kant Sahay (HUF) 1071/2024 2011- 12 24.06.2022 (Annexure P-9) Not Provided 09.03.2023 (Annexure P-6) Subodh Kant Sahay (HUF) 1072/2024 2010- 11 24.06.2022 (Annexure P-9) Not Provided 09.03.2023 (Annexure P-6) Subodh Kant Sahay (HUF) 1073/2024 2012- 13 24.06.2022 (Annexure P-9) Not Provided 09.03.2023 (Annexure P-6) Subodh Kant Sahay (HUF) 1074/2024 2013- 14 24.06.2022 (Annexure P-9) Not Provided 09.03.2023 (Annexure P-6) Mahavir Prasad Gupta 1206/2024 2011- 12 24.06.2022 (Annexure P- 13) Not Provided 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) Mahavir Prasad Gupta 1207/2024 2012- 13 24.06.2022 (Annexure P- 13) Not Provided 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) Mahavir Prasad Gupta 1208/2024 2010- 11 24.06.2022 (Annexure P- 13) Not Provided 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) Mahavir Prasad Gupta 1209/2024 2013- 14 24.06.2022 (Annexure P- 13) Not Provided 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) Tarun Kumar Sahay (HUF) 1212/2024 2013- 14 01.06.2022 (Annexure P- 14) Not Provided 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) Tarun Kumar Sahay (HUF) 1213/2024 2010- 11 01.06.2022 (Annexure P- 14) Not Provided 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) Tarun Kumar Sahay (HUF) 1214/2024 2011- 12 01.06.2022 (Annexure P- 14) Not Provided 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) Vinod Kumar Garg 5130/2023 2010- 11 24.12.2021 (as recorded in Annexure P-8) 16.02.2023 (Annexure P- 8) 19.02.2023 (Annexure P-2) Vinod Kumar Garg 5215/2023 2011- 12 24.12.2021 (as recorded in 16.02.2023 (Annexure P- 19.02.2023 (Annexure Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 50 of 179

Annexure P-8) 7) P-2) Mohan Kumar Garg 5976/2023 2011- 12 Not provided 15.03.2023 (Annexure P- 4) 16.03.2023 (Annexure P-2) Mohan Kumar Garg 5977/2023 2010- 11 Not provided 15.03.2023 (Annexure P- 4) 16.03.2023 (Annexure P-2) Kapareva Development Private Limited 335/2024 2011- 12 13.06.2022 (Annexure A- 5)

Undated (Annexure A- 5)

29.09.2022 (Annexure A-2)

Kapareva Development Private Limited 334/2024 2012- 13 13.06.2022 (Annexure A- 5)

Undated (Annexure A- 5)

29.09.2022 (Annexure A-2)

Kapareva Development Private Limited 333/2024 2013- 14 13.06.2022 (Annexure A- 5)

Undated (Annexure A- 5)

29.09.2022 (Annexure A-2)

Vikas Wahi 733/2024 2010- 11 24.06.2022 (Annexure A- 5) Undated (Annexure A- 5) 10.11.2022 (Annexure - 2) Vikas Wahi 734/2024 2011- 12 24.06.2022 (Annexure -5)

Undated (Annexure A- 5)

10.11.2022 (Annexure A-2)

Vikas Wahi 731/2024 2012- 13 24.06.2022 (Annexure A- 4)

Undated (Annexure A- 4)

10.11.2022 (Annexure A-2)

Vikas Wahi 728/2024 2013- 14 24.06.2022 (Annexure A- 6)

Undated (Annexure A- 6)

10.11.2022 (Annexure A-2)

Indo Greenfuel Private Limited 1049/2024 2010- 11 24.06.2022 (Annexure A- 5)

22.08.2022 (Annexure A- 8)

28.09.2022 (Annexure A-2)

Indo Greenfuel Private Limited 1050/2024 2011- 12 24.06.2022 (Annexure A- 5)

22.08.2022 (Annexure A- 8)

28.09.2022 (Annexure A-2)

Betsy Growth Finance Limited 1063/2024 2010- 11 12.05.2022 (Annexure A- 11) Undated (Annexure A- 11) 30.06.2022 (Annexure A-2) Mamta Aggarwal 829/2024 2010- 11 24.06.2022 (Annexure A- 6) Undated (Annexure A- 9) 18.08.2022 (Annexure A-1) Mamta Aggarwal 861/2024 2011- 12 24.06.2022 (Annexure A- 7) Undated (Annexure A- 10) 18.08.2022 (Annexure A-2) Mamta 873/2024 2012- 24.06.2022 Undated 18.08.2022 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 51 of 179

Aggarwal 13 (Annexure A- 7) (Annexure A- 10) (Annexure A-2) Ashutosh Aggarwal 991/2024 2010- 11 24.06.2022 (Annexure A- 6) 31.05.2023 (Annexure A- 6) 12.06.2023 (Annexure A-2) Ashutosh Aggarwal 1025/2024 2011- 12 24.06.2022 (Annexure A- 6) 31.05.2023 (Annexure A- 6) 12.06.2023 (Annexure A-2) Ashutosh Aggarwal 1018/2024 2012- 13 24.06.2022 (Annexure A- 6) 31.05.2023 (Annexure A- 6) 12.06.2023 (Annexure A-2) Naresh Mittal 1113/2024 2011- 12 24.06.2022 (Annexure P-9) 08.08.2022 (Annexure P- 5) 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-2) Naresh Mittal 1110/2024 2012- 13 24.06.2022 (Annexure P-9) 08.08.2022 (Annexure P- 5) 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-2)

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 52 of 179

Petitioner Name

WP(C) AY Date of Satisfaction note by Assessing Officer of the searched person Date of Satisfaction note by Assessing Officer of the non- searched person

Date of Section 153C notice Susheel Jain 694/2024 2016-17 09.06.2022 (Annexure P-8) No Satisfaction Note 16.08.2022 (Annexure P- 2) Anuj Sharma 400/2024 2010-11 20.06.2022 Annexure P-10 (Colly) 10.02.2023 Annexure P- 13 (Colly) 20.02.2023 Annexure P- 2 Anuj Sharma 384/2024 2011-12 20.06.2022 Annexure P-9 (Colly) 10.02.2023 Annexure P- 12 (Colly) 20.02.2023 Annexure P- 1 Anuj Sharma 383/2024 2012-13 20.06.2022 Annexure P-10 (Colly) 10.02.2023 Annexure P- 13 (Colly) 20.02.2023 Annexure P- 2

B. BROAD FACTUAL MATRIX 7. For the sake of convenience, we propose to notice the facts as they obtain in WP(C) 5217/2023. The petitioner submitted a Return of Income5 on 30 September 2011 for AY 2011-12. On 18 October 2019, a search and seizure operation is stated to have been carried out in respect of the Alankit Group of Companies6

5 ROI . On 22 March 2022, the petitioner was served with a notice purporting to be under Section 153C of the Act requiring it to submit a true and correct return of its total income for AY 2011-12. The aforesaid notice was followed by a communication dated 22 December 2022 under Section 142(1) requiring the petitioner to produce accounts and documents as per the annexure appended thereto. A follow-up notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was thereafter issued on 01 February 2023. It is alleged by the respondents that since the petitioner did not respond to the aforesaid 6 Alankit Group Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 53 of 179

communications, they were constrained to issue notices under Section 144 of the Act and which were dated 22 February 2023 and 03 March 2023. In response to the aforesaid, the petitioner submitted its response on 15 March 2023. 8. In order to appreciate the challenge which stands raised, we deem it apposite to extract the Satisfaction Note which came to be recorded by the AO of the writ petitioner. The Satisfaction Note which is dated 17 February 2022 is extracted hereinbelow: “Name of the Assessee: M/s Vikas Surya Developers Pvt. Ltd. PAN

AADCV3771F Date of Search

18.10.2019 Date of receipt of documents 17.02.2022

Satisfaction note for issuing notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961 ·. In this case, an information has been received from DCIT, Central Circle-28, intimating that

A search and seizure operation was carried out in the Alankit Group of cases on 18.10.2019. Analysis of the documents seized contain information pertaining to M/s Vikas Surya Developers Pvt. Ltd. have been found. The relevant details are as under:

2009-10 3,25,45,285 2,86,662 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 54 of 179

VINOD GARG 2010-11 4,02,50,800 1,55,11,420 2011-12 7,00,000

2012-13 1,00,00,000 5,37,10,550 2013-14 41,75,400 2, 70,00,000 2014-15 3,15,00,000 3,73,82,604 2015-16 2,35,45,902 52,83,417 2016-17 2,56,81,000

2017-18 7,85,00,000

2018-19 89,09,000

2019-20 94,54,000

NCPL 4,95,00,000 2,15,00,000

2013-14 Cash 1,20,00,000

DCPL

50,00,000 NCPL

2,80,00,000 5. Accordingly, I am satisfied that these documents recovered during the course of search and seizure operation mentioned above, have a bearing on the determination of total income of M/s Vikas Surya Pvt. Ltd. for the A.Ys 2010-11 to A.Y. 2020-21. Hence, notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per provisions of section 153C(2) is being issued for A.Ys 2010-11 to A.Y. 2020-21.” 9. On culmination of the proceedings so initiated, an assessment order came to be framed on 25 March 2023. The aforesaid order Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 55 of 179

discloses the following facts. The AO refers to various ledgers which were obtained in the course of the subject search as well as digital data retrieved from the laptop belonging to one Mr. Sunil Kumar Gupta. It proceeds to refer to the statements of various individuals recorded in the course of that search and ultimately comes to the following conclusions: “11. Thus, Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta has explained entire modus operandi by which unaccounted cash is received and utilized to provide accommodation entry. He has also explained in detail the manner in which he records these transactions in his Hand written diary/Excel Sheets/Tally books. 12. The transactions entered into by the assessee with various entities/companies controlled by Alok K Agarwal against unaccounted cash or otherwise to take accommodation entries, are as tabulated below: Name of beneficiary F.Y. Transaction done with Amount debited to beneficiary Amount credited to beneficiary Nature of Transactions Vikas Surya Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2010- 11

Cash 500

Loans and Advances NCPL 4,95,00,000 2,15,00,000

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx 21. In view of the facts on the basis of detailed discussion above and incriminating documents found during the course of search in Alankit Group and statement of Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta recorded on oath during the search and considering the principles laid down by the jurisdictional authorities from time to time, it is evident that incriminating documents seized from the premises of Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta are related to the assessee and the contents of such documents are duly corroborated and considered as true. Hence, the additions made on the basis of incriminating material are valid and as per the provisions of statute. 22. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, it is evident that the assesse has undertaken bogus/sham transactions wherein amount of Rs. 4,95,00,000/- is received from Newwave Commercials Pvt. Ltd by the assessee during the relevant previous year in lieu of cash as discussed above. Thus, an amount Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 56 of 179

of Rs. 4,95,00,000/- is hereby added to the total income of the assessee for the relevant period as per the provisions of the Section 68 of the I .T. Act, 1961 for A. Y. 2011-12 relevant to F.Y. 2010-11. (Addition u/s 68: Rs. 4,95,00,000/-)

22.2 Further, the assessee has concealed its particulars of income, accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated.”

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 57 of 179

Vineeta Gupta 2009-10 AFL 40,00,000 20,00,000 Cash 600 1,40,00,500

2010-11 Cash 10,000 1,15,00,000 DCPL 11,00,000

NCPL 94,00,000

PIPL 1,50,00,000 1,50,00,000

Cash 2,00,00,000

2011-12 AFL

49,50,000 DCPL

83,00,000 NCPL

67,50,000 PIPL 52,50,000 67,50,000 2012-13 Cash 17,95,000

NCPL

26,50,000

2013-14 AFL 5,00,000 60,00,000

Alok K. Agarwal 19,00,000 19,00,000 DCPL 9,00,000

Vineeta Gupta EFL 2012-13 Cash

96,00,000 EFL 2,14,24,575

Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 58 of 179

2013-14 AAL 69,19,221

Vineeta Gupta

2009-10 AFL

1,63,00,000 Cash 2,37,00,000

EFL 45,15,700

Vineeta Gupta in Newwave 2012-13 Cash 35,00,000

Vineeta Gupta 2009-10 Eurogold

74,00,000

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 59 of 179

was found to be involved in unaccounted Cash Transactions, receiving and providing accommodation entries, which requires proper verification. Satisfaction recorded in the case of the assessee is fairly detailed and is backed by supporting evidences in form of ledgers containing both bank and cash entries which prove the veracity of the said ledgers, which form an integral part of the satisfaction note drafted by the AO of the searched party and the jurisdictional AO of the assessee. xxxx

xxxx

xxxx In the present case, the live link between the material provided by the Investigation Wing/AO and the reasons for belief that income has escaped assessment has been sufficiently demonstrated. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the before opening the case u/s 153C of the Act, provision of section 153C have been duly complied with. In view of the above, there is no merit and substance in your submissions. The objections filed by you are disposed off as above and you are requested to comply with the notices issued u/s 153C for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2020-21 and notices to be issued from time to time issued by this office. 1. For the purposes of finalization of your assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after read as the 'Act') for the concerned assessment year, you were issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act for the year under consideration. In reply of which you have filed your submission, after going through that, it is found that you have not filed the satisfactory reply in respect of the below mentioned transactions:

Name of beneficiary F.Y. Transaction done with Amount debited to beneficiary Amount credited to beneficiary Vineeta Gupta 2009-10 AFL 40,00,000 20,00,000 Cash 600 1,40,00,500

2010-11 Cash 10,000 1,15,00,000 DCPL 11,00,000

NCPL 94,00,000

PIPL 1,50,00,000 1,50,00,000

Cash 2,00,00,000

2011-12 AFL

49,50,000 DCPL

83,00,000 NCPL

67,50,000 PIPL 52,50,000 67,50,000 2012-13 Cash 17,95,000

NCPL

26,50,000

AFL 5,00,000 60,00,000 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 60 of 179

2013-14 Alok K. Agarwal 19,00,000 19,00,000 DCPL 9,00,000

Vineeta Gupta EFL 2012-13 Cash

96,00,000 EFL 2,14,24,575

2013-14 AAL 69,19,221

Vineeta Gupta

2009-10 AFL

1,63,00,000 Cash 2,37,00,000

EFL 45,15,700

Vineeta Gupta in Newwave 2012-13 Cash 35,00,000

Vineeta Gupta 2009-10 Eurogold

74,00,000

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 61 of 179

adverse orders if passed against the petitioner, would not be given effect to until further orders of the Court. 13. For the sake of completeness, we also propose to take note of the salient facts pertaining to two cases which have been placed in List III. In WP(C) 400/2024, a reading of the Satisfaction Note would appear to indicate that multiple transactions pertaining to Financial Year7 “3. As per satisfaction note dated 20.06.2022, during the course of search and seizure operation, some incriminating documents were found and seized marked as Annexure A-32 as SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA HP LAPTOP. The ledgers of Shri Vijay Kumar obtained 2012- 13 and 2014-15 were noticed from the documents and material gathered in the course of the search. Dealing with the aforesaid, the AO of the petitioner/ assesee observed as under: from the laptop of Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta have been found and seized from the residence of Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta at 3584/4 Narang Colony, Gali No. 4, Tri Nagar, Delhi, during the course of search u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 carried in the case of Sh. Alok Kumar Agarwal, Sh. Ankit Agarwal, M/s Alankit Limited and M/s Alankit Assignments Limited wherein it has been found that the transactions entered into by various beneficiaries with various shell entities controlled by Alok K Agarwal, against the unaccounted cash or otherwise to take accommodation entries, are tabulated below:

Name of beneficiary F.Y. Transactions done with Amount debited to beneficiary Amount credited to beneficiary Anul Sharma 2012-13 DCPL 25,00,000/- 32,96,549 NCPL 15,00,000/-

2014-15 CASH 40,00,000/-

DCPL

25,00,000 NCPL

15,00,000 2014-15 Sunil Bhala 64,33,562/-

2012-13 Cash

21,00,000

7 FY Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 62 of 179

material/documents pertain to Shri Anuj Sharma (PAN: BEBPS2370N) and the entries appearing therein have a bearing on the determination of the income of Shri Anuj Sharma (PAN: BEBPS2370N). 5. In view of the above, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for initiating proceeding u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act 1961, for the period relevant to the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2020-21. Accordingly, notice u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act, for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2020-21 are being issued.”

Name of beneficiary F.Y. Transactions done with Amount debited to beneficiary Amount credited to beneficiary Anul Sharma 2012-13 DCPL 25,00,000/- 32,96,549 NCPL 15,00,000/-

2014-15 CASH 40,00,000/-

DCPL

25,00,000 NCPL

15,00,000 2014-15 Sunil Bhala 64,33,562/-

2012-13 Cash

21,00,000

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 63 of 179

(I) (II) (III) Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 64 of 179

Between 01.04.2015 – 31.03.2016 i.e. before insertion of 2017 amendment Between 01.04.2016 – 31.03.2017 i.e. before insertion of 2017 amendment On or after 01.04.2017 i.e., after the insertion of the 2017 amendment Search year AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 AY 2018-19 First year AY 2015-16 AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 Second year AY 2014-15 AY 2015-16 AY 2016-17 Third year AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 AY 2015-16 Fourth Year AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 Fifth year AY 2011-12 AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 Sixth year AY 2010-11 AY 2011-12 AY 2012-13 Barred by time limitation

AY 2010-11 AY 2011-12 AY 2010-11

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 65 of 179

before the amendments came to be introduced in that year. In all such cases, according to Mr. Kapoor, the introduction of the concept of a ten year block period would not empower the respondents to reassess or reopen those years which had acquired a state of repose. In support of his argument of closure, Mr. Kapoor placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Court in Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT8 “13. In K. M. Sharma's case (supra) the assessee's land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award was passed in 1967 granting compensation in favour of the assessee. Thereafter, the Additional District Judge by judgment dated May 20, 1980, held the assessee to be entitled to 1/32nd share of the compensation and the assessee was granted total compensation of Rs. 1,18,810 in the year 1981. Subsequently, by another judgment dated July 31, 1991, the assessee was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,20,624, which was received by it between October 15, 1992 and May 25, 1993. The said amount comprised of principal compensation as well as interest up to May 18, 1992. As land acquired was agricultural land, principal amount was not chargeable to tax ; however, interest amounting to Rs. 76,84,829 was chargeable on year to year basis. The assessee claimed that proceedings till assessment year 1982-83 had already attained finality and therefore, filed a letter requesting the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings for subsequent assessment years for bringing to tax interest component relatable to the said assessment years. The assessee was, however, issued notices under section 148 of the Act for fifteen assessment years, viz., assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72 and assessment years 1981- 82 to 1992-93 which were challenged on the ground of limitation. This court declined to exercise jurisdiction ; on appeal, the Supreme Court held that the provision regulating period of limitation ought to receive strict construction. The Supreme Court held that the law of limitation was intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and therefore, proceedings, which had attained finality under the existing law due to bar of limitation, could not be held to be open for revival unless the amended provision was clearly given retrospective operation so as to allow upsetting of proceedings, which had already been completed and attained finality…..

. We deem it apposite to extract the following passages from that decision:

8 2018 SCC Online Del 12847 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 66 of 179

xxxx

xxxx 16. It has been said that "the Government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand—rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances, and to plan one's affairs on the basis of this knowledge" (Ref. F. A. Hayek, "Road to Serfdom", 1944). In this case, the interpretation proposed by the Revenue has the potential of arming its authorities to re- open settled matters, in respect of issues where the citizen could genuinely be sanguine and had no obligation of the kind which the Revenue seeks to impose by the present amendment. All the more significant, is the fact that in the absence of a clear indication, every statute is presumed to be prospective. The Revenue had sought to contend that the amendment (to section 149) is merely procedural and no one has a vested right to procedure ; and that procedural amendments can be given effect any time, even in ongoing proceedings. 17. This court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the Revenue's contention. In Sri Prithvi Cotton Mills v. Broach Borough Municipality [1970] AIR 1970 SC 192, on examining the validity of the retrospective amendment of a statute in the light of article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, i.e., a fundamental right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The court said : "In testing whether a retrospective imposition of a tax operates so harshly as to violate the fundamental rights under article 19(1)(g), the factors considered relevant include the context in which retroactivity was contemplated such as whether the law is one of validation of taxing statute struck-down by courts for certain defects ; the period of such retroactivity, and the decree and extent of any unforeseen or unforeseeable financial burden imposed for the past period, etc." Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 67 of 179

9 (1964) 8 SCR 72 . The relevant passages from the judgment in S.S. Gadgil, are reproduced hereinbelow: 10 (2002) 4 SCC 339 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 68 of 179

“9. A proceeding for assessment is not a suit for adjudication of a civil dispute. That an income tax proceeding is in the nature of a judicial proceeding between contesting parties, is a matter which is not capable of even a plausible argument. The Income Tax Authorities who have power to assess and recover tax are not acting as judges deciding a litigation between the citizen and the State : they are administrative authorities whose proceedings are regulated by statute, but whose function is to estimate the income of the taxpayer and to assess him to tax on the basis of that estimate. Tax legislation necessitates the setting up of machinery to ascertain the taxable income, and to assess tax on the income, but that does not impress the proceeding with the character of an action between the citizen and the State : Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Sneath [17 TC 149, 164] ; and Shell Co. of Australia Ltd. v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation [(1931) AC 275] . 10. Again the period prescribed by Section 34 for assessment is not a period of limitation. The section in terms imposes a fetter upon the power of the Income Tax Officer to bring to tax escaped income. It prescribes different periods in different classes of cases for enforcement of the right of the State to recover tax. It was observed by this Court in Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. v. S.C. Mehta, Income Tax Officer [48 ITR (SC Section) 154, 171] : “It must be remembered that if the Income Tax Act prescribes a period during which tax due in any particular assessment year may be assessed, then on the expiry of that period the department cannot make an assessment. Where no period is prescribed the assessment can be completed at any time but once completed it is final. Once a final assessment has been made, it can only be reopened to rectify a mistake apparent from the record (Section 35) or to reassess where there has been an escapement of assessment of income for one reason or another (Section 34). Both these sections which enable reopening of back assessments provided their own periods of time for action but all these periods of time, whether for the first assessment or for rectification, or for reassessment, merely create a bar when that time passed against the machinery set up by the Income Tax Act for the assessment and levy of the tax. They do not create an exemption in favour of the assessee or grant an absolution on the expiry of the period. The liability is not enforceable but the tax may again become exigible if the bar is removed and the taxpayer is brought within the jurisdiction of the said machinery by reason of a new power. This is, of course, subject to the condition, either expressly or by clear implication. If the language of the law has that clear meaning, it must be given that effect and Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 69 of 179

where the language expressly so declares or clearly implies it, the retrospective operation is not controlled by the commencement clause.” 11. Counsel for the Commissioner sought to derive some support from Income Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [23 ITR 471] in which Chakravarti, C.J., dealing with the effect of the Income Tax and Business Profits Tax (Amendment) Act, 1948, observed: “The plain effect of the substitution of the new Section 34 with effect from 30th March, 1948 is that from that date the Income Tax Act is to be read as including the new section as a part thereof and if it is to be so read, the further effect of the express language of the section is that so far as cases coming within clause (a) of sub-section (1) are concerned all assessment years ending within eight years from 30th March, 1948 and from subsequent dates, are within its purview and it will apply to them, provided the notice contemplated is given within such eight years. What is not within the purview of the section is an assessment year which ended before eight years from 30th March, 1948.” But it may be recalled that the amending Act of 1948 with which the Court was concerned in Calcutta Discount Co. case [23 ITR 471] came into force on September 8, 1948, but Section 1(2) prescribed that the amendment in Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, shall be deemed to have come into force on March 30, 1948, and the period under the unamended section within which notice could be issued under Section 34(3) against the assessee company ended on March 31, 1951. Before that date the amending Act came into operation, and at no time had the right to reassess become barred. 12. In considering whether the amended statute applies, the question is one of interpretation i.e. to ascertain whether it was the intention of the legislature to deprive a taxpayer of the plea that action for assessment or reassessment could not be commenced, on the ground that before the amending Act became effective, it was barred. Therefore the view that even when the right to assess or reassess has lapsed on account of the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under the earlier statute, the Income Tax Officer can exercise his powers to assess or reassess under the amending statute which gives an extended period of limitation, was not accepted in Calcutta Discount Co. case [23 ITR 471] . 13. As we have already pointed out, the right to commence a proceeding for assessment against the assessee as an agent of a non-resident party under the Income Tax Act before it was Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 70 of 179

amended, ended on March 31, 1956. It is true that under the amending Act by Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, authority was conferred upon the Income Tax Officer to assess a person as an agent of a foreign party under Section 43 within two years from the end of the year of assessment. But authority of the Income Tax Officer under the Act before it was amended by the Finance Act of 1956 having already come to an end, the amending provision will not assist him to commence a proceeding even though at the date when he issued the notice it is within the period provided by that amending Act. This will be so, notwithstanding the fact that there has been no determinable point of time between the expiry of the time provided under the old Act and the commencement of the amending Act. The legislature has given to Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a limited retrospective operation i.e. up to April 1, 1956, only. That provision must be read subject to the rule that in the absence of an express provision or clear implication, the legislature does not intend to attribute to the amending provision a greater retrospectivity than is expressly mentioned, nor to authorise the Income Tax Officer to commence proceedings which before the new Act came into force had by the expiry of the period provided, become barred.” 19. In K.M. Sharma, the Supreme Court while reiterating the view which was taken in S.S. Gadgil, had held as under: “14. A fiscal statute, more particularly, on a provision such as the present one regulating period of limitation must receive strict construction. Law of limitation is intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and to avoid exposure to risk of litigation to a litigant for an indefinite period on future unforeseen events. Proceedings, which have attained finality under existing law due to bar of limitation cannot be held to be open for revival unless the amended provision is clearly given retrospective operation so as to allow upsetting of proceedings, which had already been concluded and attained finality. The amendment to sub-section (1) of Section 150 is not expressed to be retrospective and, therefore, has to be held as only prospective. The amendment made to sub-section (1) of Section 150 which intends to lift the embargo of period of limitation under Section 149 to enable the authorities to reopen assessments not only on the basis of orders passed in the proceedings under the IT Act but also on order of a court in any proceedings under any law has to be applied prospectively on or after 1-4-1989 when the said amendment was introduced to sub-section (1). The provision in sub-section (1) therefore can have only prospective operation to assessments, Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 71 of 179

which have not become final due to expiry of period of limitation prescribed for assessment under Section 149 of the Act. 15. To hold that the amendment to sub-section (1) would enable the authorities to reopen assessments, which had already attained finality due to bar of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Act as applicable prior to 1-4-1989, would amount to giving sub-section (1) a retrospective operation, which is neither expressly nor impliedly intended by the amended sub-section. xxxx

xxxx

xxxx 20. This Court took similar view in the case of S.S. Gadgil [(1964) 53 ITR 231 : AIR 1965 SC 171] in somewhat comparable situation arising from the retrospective operation given to Section 34-I of the Income Tax Act, 1922 as amended with retrospective effect from 1-4-1956 by the Finance Act of 1956. In the case of S.S. Gadgil [(1964) 53 ITR 231 : AIR 1965 SC 171] admittedly under clause (iii) of the proviso to Section 34- I of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, as it then stood, a notice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person deemed to be an agent of a non-resident under Section 43, after the expiry of one year from the end of the year of assessment. The section was amended by Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, extending this period of limitation to two years from the end of the assessment year. The amendment was given retrospective effect from 1-4-1956. On 12-3-1957, the Income Tax Officer issued a notice calling upon the assessee to show cause why, in respect of Assessment Year 1954-55, the assessee should not be treated as an agent under Section 43 in respect of certain non- residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action was barred by limitation as the right to commence proceedings of assessment against the assessee as an agent of non-resident for Assessment Year 1954-55 ended on 31- 3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the case of S.S. Gadgil [(1964) 53 ITR 231 : AIR 1965 SC 171] accepted the contention of the assessee and held as under: (ITR p. 240) “The legislature has given to Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a limited retrospective operation i.e. up to 1-4- 1956, only. That provision must be read subject to the rule that in the absence of an express provision or clear implication, the legislature does not intend to attribute to the amending provision a greater retrospectivity than is expressly mentioned, nor to authorise the Income Tax Officer to commence proceedings which before the new Act came into force had by the expiry of the period provided become barred.” Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 72 of 179

11 2012 SCC Online Del 3085 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 73 of 179

case. The issue or question in the present case relates to assessment i.e. initiation of re-assessment proceedings and whether the time/limitation for initiation of the re-assessment proceedings specified by the Finance Act, 2001 is applicable. We are not determining/deciding the liability to tax but have to adjudicate and decide whether the re-assessment notice is beyond the time period stipulated. This is a matter/issue of procedure i.e. the time period in which the assessment or re-assessment proceedings can be initiated. Thus, the time period/limitation period prescribed on the date of issue of notice will apply. In our opinion, the answer is clear and has to be in affirmative, i.e. in favour of the assessee.

"93. .. .. If the 1948 Amendment could be treated as enabling the Income Tax Officer to take action at any point of time in respect of back assessment years within eight years of March 30, 1948 then such cases were within his power to tax. We have such a case here in CA No. 509 of 1958 where the notice was issued in 1949 to the lady whose husband had remitted Rs 9180 to her from Bangkok in the year relative to Assessment Year 1942-43. That lady was assessable in respect of this sum under Section 4(2) of the Income Tax Act. She did not file a return. If the case stood governed by the 1939 Amendment the period applicable would have been four years if she had not concealed the particulars of the income. She had of course not deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. If the case was governed by the 1948 Amendment she would come within the eight-year rule because she had failed to furnish a return. Now, we do not think that we can treat the different periods indicated under Section 34 as periods of limitation, the expiry of which grant prescriptive title to defaulting tax-payers It may be said that an assessment once made is final and conclusive except for the provisions of Sections 34 and 35 but it is quite a different matter to say that a "vested right" arises in the assessee. On the expiry of the period the assessments, if any, may also become final and conclusive but only so long as the law is not altered retrospectively. Under the scheme of the Income Tax Act a liability to pay tax is incurred when according to the Finance Act in force the amount of Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 74 of 179

income, profits or gains is above the exempted. That liability to the State is independent of any consideration of time and, in the absence of any provision restricting action by a time limit, it can be enforced at any time. What the law does is to prevent harassment of assessees to the end of time by prescribing a limit of time for its own officers to take action. This limit of time is binding upon the officers, but the liability under the charging section can only be said to be unenforceable after the expiry of the period under the law as it stands. In other words, though the liability to pay tax remains it cannot be enforced by the officers administering the tax laws. If the disability is removed or according to a new law a new time limit is created retrospectively, there is no reason why the liability should not be treated as still enforceable. The law does not deal with concluded claims or their revival but with the enforcement of a liability to the State which though existing remained to be enforced ...

XXX

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 75 of 179

Bhagwandas, Lakhimpur Kheri, (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC).

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

12 (2015) 1 SCC 1 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 76 of 179

not backward. As was observed in Phillips v. Eyre [(1870) LR 6 QB 1] , a retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law. 29. The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectivity is the principle of “fairness”, which must be the basis of every legal rule as was observed in L'Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. [(1994) 1 AC 486 : (1994) 2 WLR 39 : (1994) 1 All ER 20 (HL)] Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We need not note the cornucopia of case law available on the subject because aforesaid legal position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties. In any case, we shall refer to few judgments containing this dicta, a little later. 30. We would also like to point out, for the sake of completeness, that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators' object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Govt. of India v. Indian Tobacco Assn. [(2005) 7 SCC 396] , the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in Vijay v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 6 SCC 289]. It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are (sic not) confronted with any such situation here. 31. In such cases, retrospectivity is attached to benefit the persons in contradistinction to the provision imposing some burden or liability where the presumption attaches towards prospectivity. In the instant case, the proviso added to Section 113 of the Act is not Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 77 of 179

beneficial to the assessee. On the contrary, it is a provision which is onerous to the assessee. Therefore, in a case like this, we have to proceed with the normal rule of presumption against retrospective operation. Thus, the rule against retrospective operation is a fundamental rule of law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication. Dogmatically framed, the rule is no more than a presumption, and thus could be displaced by outweighing factors.” In view of the above, Mr. Kapoor submitted that the respondents would have no jurisdiction to issue a notice or frame an assessment for AYs’ 2010-11 and 2011-12, since the period for reopening of those assessments had lapsed before the 2017 Amending Act came into force. According to learned counsel, since those assessments had attained finality, the amended Section 153C could not be resorted to and that conclusiveness effaced. 22. Mr. Kapoor then proceeded to the principal provision itself and submitted that by virtue of the First Proviso to Section 153C(1), the relevant AYs’ would have to be reckoned with reference to the date on which documents pertaining to the non-searched person are received by the AO of that person. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid position is manifest from a plain reading of that Proviso and which bids us to recognize the date of receiving of the books of account, documents or assets by that AO as being the date relevant for the purposes of the Second Proviso to Section 153A(1). According to learned counsel, the aforesaid position in law can no longer be doubted bearing in mind the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in CIT vs Jasjit Singh13

13 2023 SCC Online SC 1265 and Income Tax Officer vs Vikram Sujitkumar Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 78 of 179

Bhatia & Ors14 “8. In SSP Aviation (supra) the High Court inter alia reasoned as follows:— . Mr. Kapoor invited our attention to the following passages from the decision in Jasjit Singh: “14. Now there can be a situation when during the search conducted on one person under Section 132, some documents or valuable assets or books of account belonging to some other person, in whose case the search is not conducted, may be found. In such case, the Assessing Officer has to first be satisfied under Section 153C, which provides for the assessment of income of any other person, i.e., any other person who is not covered by the search, that the books of account or other valuable article or document belongs to the other person (person other than the one searched). He shall hand over the valuable article or books of account or document to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person has to proceed against him and issue notice to that person in order to assess or reassess the income of such other person in the, manner contemplated by the provisions of Section 153A. Now a question may arise as to the applicability of the second proviso to Section 153A in the case of the other person, in order to examine the question of pending proceedings which have to abate. In the case of the searched person, the date with reference to which the proceedings for assessment or reassessment of any assessment year within the period of the six assessment years shall abate, is the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or the requisition under Section 132A. For instance, in the present case, with reference to the Puri Group of Companies, such date will be 5.1.2009. However, in the case of the other person, which in the present case is the petitioner herein, such date will be the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisition by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. In the case of the other person, the question of pendency and abatement of the proceedings of assessment or reassessment to the six assessment years will be examined with reference to such date.” 9. It is evident on a plain interpretation of Section 153C(1) that the Parliamentary intent to enact the proviso was to cater not merely to the question of abatement but also with regard to the

14 2023 SCC Online SC 370 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 79 of 179

date from which the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of which the returns were to be filed by the third party (whose premises are not searched and in respect of whom the specific provision under Section 153-C was enacted. The revenue argued that the proviso [to Section 153(c)(1)] is confined in its application to the question of abatement. 10. This Court is of the opinion that the revenue's argument is insubstantial and without merit. It is quite plausible that without the kind of interpretation which SSP Aviation adopted, the A.O. seized of the materials - of the search party, under Section 132 - would take his own time to forward the papers and materials belonging to the third party, to the concerned A.O. In that event if the date would virtually “relate back” as is sought to be contended by the revenue, (to the date of the seizure), the prejudice caused to the third party, who would be drawn into proceedings as it were unwittingly (and in many cases have no concern with it at all), is dis-proportionate. For instance, if the papers are in fact assigned under Section 153-C after a period of four years, the third party assessee's prejudice is writ large as it would have to virtually preserve the records for at latest 10 years which is not the requirement in law. Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be attributed to Parliament. On the other hand, a plain reading of Section 153-C supports the interpretation which this Court adopts.” 23. Mr. Kapoor then highlighted the following observations as appearing in Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia: “41. Thus, as per the proviso to Section 153C as inserted vide Finance Act, 2005, and the effect of the said proviso is that it creates a deeming fiction wherein any reference made to the date of initiation of search is deemed to be a reference made to the date when the Assessing Officer of the non-searched person receives the books of account or documents or assets seized etc. Thus, in the present case, even though the search under Section 132 was initiated prior to the amendment to Section 153C w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the books of account or documents or assets were seized by the Assessing Officer of the non-searched person only on 25.04.2017, which is subsequent to the amendment, therefore, when the notice under Section 153C was issued on 04.05.2018, the provision of the law existing as on that date, i.e., the amended Section 153C shall be applicable.” Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 80 of 179

(2012) 346 ITR 177 (Delhi) has held that (page 188): "In the case of the searched person, the date with reference to which proceedings for assessment or reassessment of any assessment year within a period of six assessment years shall abate, is the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A. .. However, in the case of other person. .. such date will be the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisition by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. In the case of other person, the question of pendency and abatement of the proceedings of assessment or reassessment to the six assessment years will be examined with reference to such date" xxxx

xxxx

xxxx 24. As discussed hereinbefore, in terms of the proviso to section 153C of the Act, a reference to the date of the search under the second proviso to section 153A of the Act has to be construed as the date of handing over of assets/documents belonging to the assessee (being the person other than the one searched) to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction to assess the said assessee. Further proceedings, by virtue of section 153C(1) of the Act would have to be in accordance with section 153A of the Act and the reference to the date of search would have to be construed as the reference to the date of recording of satisfaction. It would

15 2015 SCC Online Del 13085 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 81 of 179

follow that the six assessment years for which assessments/reassessments could be made under section 153C of the Act would also have to be construed with reference to the date of handing over of assets/documents to the Assessing Officer of the assessee. In this case, it would be the date of the recording of satisfaction under section 153C of the Act, i.e., September 8, 2010. In this view, the assessments made in respect of the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 would be beyond the period of six assessment years as reckoned with reference to the date of recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the searched person. It is contended by the Revenue that the relevant six assessment years would be the assessment years prior to the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. If this interpretation as canvassed by the Revenue is accepted, it would mean that whereas in case of a person searched, assessments in relation to six previous years preceding the year in which the search takes place can be reopened but in case of any other person, who is not searched but his assets are seized from the searched person, the period for which the assessments could be reopened would be much beyond the period of six years. This is so because the date of handing over of assets/documents of a person, other than the searched person, to the Assessing Officer would be subsequent to the date of the search. This, in our view, would be contrary to the scheme of section 153C(1) of the Act, which construes the date of receipt of assets and documents by the Assessing Officer of the assessee(other than one searched) as the date of the search on the assessee. The rationale appears to be that whereas in the case of a searched person the Assessing Officer of the searched person assumes possession of the seized assets/documents on search of the assessee ; the seized assets/documents belonging to a person other than a searched person come into possession of the Assessing Officer of that person only after the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the assets/documents do not belong to the searched person. Thus, the date on which the Assessing Officer of the person other than the one searched assumes the possession of the seized assets would be the relevant date for applying the provisions of section 153A of the Act. We, therefore, accept the contention that in any view of the matter, assessment for the assessment year 2003-04 and the assessment year 2004-05 were outside the scope of section 153C of the Act and the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to make an assessment of the assessee's income for that year.” 25. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid position becomes further evident when one views the Memorandum to Finance Bill 2005 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 82 of 179

which while inserting the First Proviso with retrospective effect from 01 June 2003 had explained the intent of that provision in the following terms: “MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO DIRECT TAXES “(i) Prescribing the rates of income-tax……….. Rationalisation of procedure for assessment in cases of search and seizure. ……….. It is proposed to amend the said section so as to provide that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having the jurisdiction over such other person…”

(2012) 346 ITR 177 and the subsequent decision in CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2015) 62 taxmann.com 391(Del.) perhaps did not discuss the first proviso to Section 153B (1) of the Act. The further contention is that in any event the effect of a combined reading of the first proviso to Section 153B (1) and the first proviso to Section 153C (1) of the Act would only be that regular assessments which may have been pending for any of the six AYs as would be evident from the following passages of that decision:

16 Order dated 28 January 2016 in ITA 370/2015 and connected matters Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 83 of 179

preceding the year of search would abate but that the period for completion of assessments would begin to run from the later date i.e. the date of handing over of the accounts and documents etc to the AO of the 'other person'. In effect, learned counsel for the Revenue doubted the correctness of the decisions in SSP Aviation (supra) and RRJ Securities(supra) and sought a reference of the case to a larger Bench. 6. Having considered the relevant provisions and the decisions referred to, this Court is not persuaded to accept the above plea. The decision of this Court in RRJ Securities (supra), apart from discussing the provisions in question also adverted to the earlier decision in SSP Aviation(supra) and concluded as under…. 7. This Court reiterates the view already expressed by it in RRJ Securities (supra) when it comes to reopening of assessments of a person other than the searched person, in terms of the first proviso to Section 153C(1). In such event the date of search would get postponed to the date of receipt of the books of accounts or documents seized by the AO having jurisdiction over such ‘other person’ and the six earlier AYs would have to be reckoned with reference to such postponed date of search. The first proviso to Section 153 B (1) does not support the case sought to be canvassed by the Revenue. It refers to and acknowledges that the date of search qua the 'other person', in terms of the first proviso to Section 153 C (1), gets postponed to the date on which documents are handed over to the AO of the 'other person'. Consequently, the question of referring the case to a larger Bench does not arise.” 27. Proceeding then to the statutory position which came into effect post the 2017 Amending Act, Mr. Kapoor submitted that the provisions in question construct separate and independent principles for the purposes of identifying the six preceding AYs’ or the block of ten AYs’ as defined by the phrase “relevant assessment year”. It was in this regard and at the outset submitted that the judgment of the Court in RRJ Securities would continue to constitute good law and would remain unimpacted by the amendments which came to be introduced by virtue of the 2017 Amending Act. According to learned counsel, the primary objective of the amendments was to expand the reach of Section 153A beyond six AYs’ in cases where evidence or material may have been Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 84 of 179

gathered in the course of a search. It was submitted that since the expression “relevant assessment year” came to be introduced in Section 153A, corresponding amendments were necessarily required to be made to Section 153C. According to learned counsel, notwithstanding those amendments, the statutory position would remain unaltered since the six years would have to be calculated with reference to the year in which the requisition was made by the jurisdictional AO of the “other person”. Mr. Kapoor submitted that the amendments made to Section 153C were merely aimed at aligning that provision with Section 153A. The fact that these amendments introduced in Section 153C were consequential would be evident from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2017, the Notes on Clauses as well as the Explanatory Notes to the provisions of the 2017 Amending Act. Relevant extracts of the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2017 is reproduced hereinbelow: “Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2017 It is however proposed that the amended provisions of section 153A shall apply where search under section 132 is initiated or requisition under section 132A is made on or after the 1st day of April, 2017. It is also proposed to consequentially amend section 153C to provide a reference to the relevant assessment year or years as referred to in section 153A. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2017.” 28. The relevant extracts of the Notes on Clauses to the Finance Bill, 2017 are extracted hereunder: “Notes on Clauses “…Clause 61 of the Bill seeks to amend section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment of income of any other person. It is proposed to amend the second proviso to sub- section of the said section so as to provide a reference to the relevant assessment year as referred to in sub-section ( 1} of section 153A. Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 85 of 179

The proposed amendment is consequential to the amendment to section 153A of the Income-tax Act and shall apply in respect of search conducted or requisition made on or after the 1st day of April, 2017. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2017. …” 29. The relevant portions of the Explanatory Notes to the provisions of the 2017 Amending Act, as set out in Circular No. 2/2018 are set out hereinbelow: “Explanatory Notes to the provisions of the Finance Act, 2017 “80. Rationalisation of provisions of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 and consequential amendment to section 153A and 153C … 80.4 However, in order to protect the interest of the revenue in cases where tangible evidence(s) are found during a search or seizure operation (including section 132A cases) and the same is represented in the form of undisclosed investment in any asset, section 153A of the Income-tax Act relating to search assessments has been amended to provide that notice under the said section can be issued for an assessment year or years beyond the sixth assessment year already provided up to the tenth assessment year if- (i) the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of accounts or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more in one year or in aggregate in the relevant four assessment years(falling beyond the sixth year); (ii) such income escaping assessment is represented in the form of asset; (iii) the income escaping assessment or part thereof relates to such year or years. 80.5 Applicability: The amended provisions of section 153A of the Income-tax Act shall apply where search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act is initiated or requisition under section 132A of the Income-tax Act is made on or after the 1st day of April 2017. 80.6 Section 153C of the Income-tax Act has also been amended to provide a reference to the relevant assessment year or years as referred to in section 153A of the Income-tax Act. 80.7 Applicability: These amendments take effect from 1st April, 2017.” Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 86 of 179

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 87 of 179

placed strong reliance on the following observations as appearing in the decision of the Madras High Court in A.R. Safiullah vs ACIT17 “9. Explanation-I is clear as to the manner of computation of the ten assessment years. it clearly and firmly fixes the starting point. It is the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made. There cannot be any doubt that since search was made 1n this case on 10.04.2018, the assessment year is 2019-20. The end of the assessment year 2019-20 is 31.03.2020. The computation of ten years has to run backwards from the said date ie., 31.03.2020. The first year will of course be the search assessment year itself. In that event, the ten assessment years will be as follows : .

1st Year 2019-20 2nd Year 2018-19 3rd Year 2017-18 4th Year 2016-17 5th Year 2015-16 6th Year 2014-15 7th Year 2013-14 8th Year 2012-13 9th Year 2011-12 10th Year 2010-11

The case on hand pertains to AY 2009-10. It is obviously beyond the ten year outer ceiling limit prescribed by the statute. The terminal point is the tenth year calculated from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted. The long arm of the law can go up to this terminal point and not one day beyond. When the statute is clear and admits of no ambiguity, it has to be strictly construed and there is no scope for looking to the explanatory notes appended to statute or circular issued by the department.

17 WP(MD) No. 4327/2021 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 88 of 179

computing the ten assessment years, the starting point has to be the end of the search assessment year. In other words, search assessment year has to be including in the latter case. It is not for me to fathom the wisdom of the parliament. I cannot assume that the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 intended to bring in four more years over and above the six years already provided within the scope of the provision. When the law has prescribed a particular length, it is not for the court to stretch it. Plasticity is the new mantra in neuroscience, thanks to the teachings of Norman Doidge. It implies that contrary to settled wisdom, even brain structure can be changed. But not so when it comes to a provision in a taxing statute that is free of ambiguity. Such a provision cannot be elastically construed.” 31. Mr. Ved Jain, appearing for some of the writ petitioners addressed the following submissions. It was at the outset submitted that the relevant date for the purposes of computing the period of preceding six AYs’ or the relevant AYs’ is an issue which is no longer res integra and stands conclusively determined by the Supreme Court in Jasjit Singh. The position so enunciated, according to Mr. Jain, also finds resonance in the observations rendered by the Supreme Court in Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia. According to learned counsel, the purpose of the First Proviso to Section 153C of the Act is not merely to deal with or provide for abatement of pending assessments but also to identify the date from which the six year period is to be reckoned. According to Mr. Jain, the respondents appear to have proceeded on the incorrect premise of the 2017 amendments having altered or modified the aforesaid position. Adopting the submissions which were addressed by Mr. Kapoor in this respect, Mr. Jain submitted that the amendments introduced in Section 153C were only consequential and in order to attune it with Section 153A. Mr. Jain submitted that the principles which came to be propounded in Jasjit Singh, although being a judgment rendered in the context of the statutory position as existing prior to the 2017 amendments, would remain unchanged. In any case, Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 89 of 179

Mr. Jain sought to highlight the fact that the decision in Jasjit Singh noticed Sections 153A and 153C as they came to exist post the 2017 amendments as well. Mr. Jain submitted that the judgment in Jasjit Singh had taken due note of the serious prejudice which would be caused to an assessee if the Revenue’s contentions were to be accepted or if an inordinate delay in handing over papers and materials to the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person was to be ignored. According to Mr. Jain, the time gap that may occur clearly assumes a status of criticality in light of the binding decisions handed down by the Supreme Court. 32. Mr. Jain also reiterated the contentions addressed by Mr. Kapoor and insofar as they pertained to the computation of the six and ten AYs’ as also the distinction between the starting point from which those periods are to be reckoned. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents clearly did not have jurisdiction to issue notices for AYs’ 2010-11 to 2013-14 since the period for which an assessment could have been undertaken would have to be reckoned from the deemed date of search, a concept introduced in terms of the First Proviso to Section 153C. According to learned counsel, in WP(C) 1113/2024 the material gathered in the course of the search was handed over to the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person on 24 June 2022 and which would thus fall in FY 2022-23 with its corresponding AY being 2023-24. Mr. Jain urged that the terminal point of AY 2023-24 would undoubtedly be 31 March 2024. According to learned counsel, if the ten year period were to be counted backwards from that date it would not travel beyond AY 2014-15. This was explained by way of the following chart: Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 90 of 179

“Computation of 10 years considering 31.03.2024 as the end of the relevant assessment year: 1st Year AY 2023-24 2nd Year AY 2022-23 3rd Year AY 2021-22 4th Year AY 2020-21 5th Year AY 2019-20 6th Year AY 2018-19 7th Year AY 2017-18 8th Year AY 2016-17 9th Year AY 2015-16 10th Year AY 2014-15

As AY 2014-15 is the terminal ‘relevant assessment year’, no proceedings can be initiated for any year prior to AY 2014-15.” 33. According to Mr. Jain, AY 2014-15 would thus constitute the last relevant AY for which notice could have been possibly issued subject of course to the additional conditions prescribed under the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A being satisfied. It was in the aforesaid backdrop that Mr. Jain contended that proceedings for AY 2010-11 up to AY 2013-14 would be barred in respect of all cases where the deemed date of search falls in FY 2022-23. Mr Jain also commended for our consideration the judgment of the Madras High Court in A.R. Safiullah. 34. Without prejudice to the aforenoted contention, Mr. Jain submitted that proceedings for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 came to be barred by limitation on 31 March 2016 and 31 March 2017 respectively. It was thus submitted that the statutory position which came into place post the 2017 Amending Act would neither enlarge the period of limitation period nor could those amendments be viewed as empowering the respondents to reopen concluded assessments. Mr. Jain further submitted that since all proceedings for AY 2010-11 and 2011- Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 91 of 179

12 had attained finality prior to 01 April 2017, the impugned notices are liable to be quashed additionally on this score. 35. Mr. Rohit Jain, learned counsel appearing in some of the writ petitions, submitted that in respect of the “other person”, Section 153C substitutes the date of search with the date of receipt of documents by the jurisdictional AO. This, according to Mr. Rohit Jain, is evident from that provision bidding one to construe the date of receipt of documents by the AO of the non-searched person alone being relevant. The aforesaid position, according to Mr. Jain, can no longer be doubted bearing in mind the judgments in Jasjit Singh and RRJ Securities. Mr. Jain then submitted that insofar as the ten year block period is concerned, Section 153C enables reopening of assessments for a period of ten years including the year of receipt of documents. Learned counsel laid stress upon Section 153A speaking of the end of the assessment year and identifying that date as relevant for the purposes of identification of the ten year period. The aforesaid argument was sought to be explained with the aid of the following table: “AYs No. of Years Year of passing/ handover of documents AY 2023-24 1

AY 2022-23 2

AY 2021-22 3

AY 2020-21 4

AY 2019-20 5

AY 2018-19 6

AY 2017-18 7

AY 2016-17 8

AY 2015-16 9

AY 2014-15 10

AY 2013-14 11 Barred by limitation [point no.2] Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 92 of 179

AY 2012-13 12 Barred by limitation [Point Nos. 1 & 2]”

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 93 of 179

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 94 of 179

(the Scheme), and no declaration in respect of such income is made under the Scheme, then, such income shall be deemed to have accrued, arisen or received, as the case may be, in the year in which a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or section 148 or section 153A or section 153C of the Income-tax Act is issued by the Assessing Officer, and provisions of the said Act shall apply accordingly. 80.2 In view of the various representations received from stakeholders, section 197 of the Finance Act, 2016 has been amended so as to omit clause (c) of the said section. 80.3 Applicability: This amendment takes effect retrospectively from 1st June, 2016. 80.4 However, in order to protect the interest of the revenue in cases where tangible evidence(s) are found during a search or seizure operation (including section 132A cases) and the same is represented in the form of undisclosed investment in any asset, section 153A of the Income-tax Act relating to search assessments has been amended to provide that notice under the said section can be issued for an assessment year or years beyond the sixth assessment year already provided up to the tenth assessment year if— (i) the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of accounts or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more in one year or in aggregate in the relevant four assessment years (falling beyond the sixth year); (ii) such income escaping assessment is represented in the form of asset; (iii) the income escaping assessment or part thereof relates to such year or years. 80.5 Applicability: The amended provisions of section 153A of the Income-tax Act shall apply where search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act is initiated or requisition under section 132A of the Income-tax Act is made on or after the 1st day of April, 2017. 80.6 Section 153C of the Income-tax Act has also been amended to provide a reference to the relevant assessment year or years as referred to in section 153A of the Income-tax Act. 80.7 Applicability: These amendments take effect from 1st April, 2017.” Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 95 of 179

18 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9860 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 96 of 179

(a) the assessing officer shall—

(i) in respect of search initiated or books of accounts or other documents or any assets requisitioned after the 30th day of June, 1995 but before the 1st day of January, 1997 serve a notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such time not being less than fifteen days;

(ii) in respect of search initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets requisitioned on or after the 1st day of January, 1997 serve a notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such time not being less than fifteen days but not more than forty-five days, as may be specified in the notice a return in the prescribed form and verified in the same manner as a return under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 142, setting forth his total income including the undisclosed income for the block period: Provided that no notice under Section 148 is required to be issued for the purpose of proceeding under this Chapter: Provided further that a person who has furnished a return under this clause shall not be entitled to file a revised return;

19 2014 SCC OnLine SC 227 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 97 of 179

(b) the assessing officer shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down in Section 158-BB and the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143, Section 144 and Section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply; (c) the assessing officer, on determination of the undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment; (d) the assets seized under Section 132 or requisitioned under Section 132-A shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 132-B. *** 158-BD.Undisclosed income of any other person.—Where the assessing officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person other than the person with respect to whom search was made under Section 132 or whose books of account or other documents or any assets were requisitioned under Section 132-A, then, the books of account, other documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that assessing officer shall proceed under Section 158-BC against such other person and the provisions of this Chapter shall apply accordingly.” xxxx

xxxx

xxxx 32. It is also trite that while interpreting a machinery provision, the courts would interpret a provision in such a way that it would give meaning to the charging provisions and that the machinery provisions are liberally construed by the courts. In Mahim Patram (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [(2007) 3 SCC 668] this Court has observed that: (SCC p. 680, paras 25-26) “25. A taxing statute indisputably is to be strictly construed. (See J. Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P. [(2006) 12 SCC 607 : (2006) 13 Scale 27] ) It is, however, also well settled that the machinery provisions for calculating the tax or the procedure for its calculation are to be construed by ordinary rule of construction. Whereas a liability has been imposed on a dealer by the charging section, it is well settled that the court would construe the statute in such a manner so as to make the machinery workable. 26. In J. Srinivasa Rao [(2006) 12 SCC 607 : (2006) 13 Scale 27] this Court noticed the decisions of this Court in Gursahai Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 98 of 179

Saigal v. CIT [(1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC)] and Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs [(2006) 12 SCC 583 : (2006) 202 ELT 561] . ‘17. In Gursahai Saigal [(1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC)] the question which fell for consideration before this Court was construction of the machinery provisions vis-à-vis the charging provisions. The Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act is not machinery provision. It is a part of the charging provision. 18. By giving a plain meaning to the Schedule appended to the Act, the machinery provision does not become unworkable. It did not prevent the clear intention of the legislature from being defeated. It can be given an appropriate meaning.’” xxxx

xxxx

xxxx 34. It is the duty of the court while interpreting the machinery provisions of a taxing statute to give effect to its manifest purpose. Wherever the intention to impose liability is clear, the courts ought not be hesitant in espousing a commonsense interpretation to the machinery provisions so that the charge does not fail. The machinery provisions must, no doubt, be so construed as would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same (Whitney v. IRC [1926 AC 37 (HL)] , CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [(1939-40) 67 IA 239 : (1940) 52 LW 234 : (1940) 8 ITR 442] , Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Excess Profits Tax [(1955) 27 ITR 20 (SC)] and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [(1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC)] ; CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons [(1994) 6 SCC 623] ; CIT v. National Taj Traders [(1980) 1 SCC 370 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 124] ; Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CTO [(1981) 4 SCC 578 : 1982 SCC (Tax) 3 : (1981) 48 STC 466] ). Francis Bennion in Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 5th Edn., Lexis Nexis in support of the aforesaid proposition put forth as an illustration that since charge made by the legislator in procedural provisions is excepted to be for the general benefit of litigants and others, it is presumed that it applies to pending as well as future proceedings. 35. Having said that, let us revert to the discussion of Section 158-BD of the Act. The said provision is a machinery provision and inserted in the statute book for the purpose of carrying out assessments of a person other than the searched person under Sections 132 or 132-A of the Act. Under Section 158-BD of the Act, if an officer is satisfied that there exists any undisclosed income which may belong to any other person other than the searched person under Sections 132 or 132-A of the Act, after Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 99 of 179

recording such satisfaction, may transmit the records/documents/chits/papers, etc. to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over such other person. After receipt of the aforesaid satisfaction and upon examination of the said other documents relating to such other person, the jurisdictional assessing officer may proceed to issue a notice for the purpose of completion of the assessments under Section 158-BD of the Act, the other provisions of Chapter XIV-B shall apply. 36. The opening words of Section 158-BD of the Act are that the assessing officer must be satisfied that “undisclosed income” belongs to any other person other than the person with respect to whom a search was made under Section 132 of the Act or a requisition of books was made under Section 132-A of the Act and thereafter, transmit the records for assessment of such other person. Therefore, the short question that falls for our consideration and decision is at what stage of the proceedings should the satisfaction note be prepared by the assessing officer: whether at the time of initiating proceedings under Section 158- BC for the completion of the assessments of the searched person under Sections 132 and 132-A of the Act or during the course of the assessment proceedings under Section 158-BC of the Act or after completion of the proceedings under Section 158-BC of the Act. xxxx

xxxx

xxxx 38. We would certainly say that before initiating proceedings under Section 158-BD of the Act, the assessing officer who has initiated proceedings for completion of the assessments under Section 158-BC of the Act should be satisfied that there is an undisclosed income which has been traced out when a person was searched under Section 132 or the books of accounts were requisitioned under Section 132-A of the Act. This is in contrast to the provisions of Section 148 of the Act where recording of reasons in writing are a sine qua non. Under Section 158-BD the existence of cogent and demonstrative material is germane to the assessing officers' satisfaction in concluding that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person is necessary for initiation of action under Section 158-BD. The bare reading of the provision indicates that the satisfaction note could be prepared by the assessing officer either at the time of initiating proceedings for completion of assessment of a searched person under Section 158-BC of the Act or during the stage of the assessment proceedings. It does not mean that after completion of the assessment, the assessing officer cannot prepare the satisfaction note to the effect that there exists income tax belonging to any person other than the searched person in respect of whom a search was made under Section 132 or requisition of Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 100 of 179

books of accounts was made under Section 132-A of the Act. The language of the provision is clear and unambiguous. The legislature has not imposed any embargo on the assessing officer in respect of the stage of proceedings during which the satisfaction is to be reached and recorded in respect of the person other than the searched person. xxxx

xxxx

xxxx 41. In the result, we hold that for the purpose of Section 158-BD of the Act a satisfaction note is sine qua non and must be prepared by the assessing officer before he transmits the records to the other assessing officer who has jurisdiction over such other person. The satisfaction note could be prepared at either of the following stages: (a) at the time of or along with the initiation of proceedings against the searched person under Section 158-BC of the Act; (b) along with the assessment proceedings under Section 158-BC of the Act; and (c) immediately after the assessment proceedings are completed under Section 158-BC of the Act of the searched person.” 43. It was argued that the amendments introduced in the statute in 2017 were only clarificatory and curative and therefore must be conferred a construction which subserves the intent of the charging provision. According to learned counsels, understood in the aforesaid light, it would be manifest that the amended provisions would apply to all pending cases where notices may have come to be issued after 01 April 2017 and irrespective of the AY to which they may relate. According to learned counsels, since the decisions rendered by the Court in RRJ Securities as well as the Supreme Court in Jasjit Singh had dealt with a pre 2017 position, they are clearly distinguishable. 44. It was also their submission that the rule against retrospective construction would not stand attracted to a provision merely because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn from a time antecedent to its passing. According to learned counsels, if a contrary construction were Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 101 of 179

to be given, every statute would be presumed to apply only to persons born and things coming into existence after its operation and thus resulting in a virtual nullification of most statutes. Reliance in this respect was placed upon the decision in Birmingham City Council v. Walker20 “11 In my opinion, therefore, the events to which section 88(1) refers are events in relation to tenancies which have become secure tenancies and not to events which happened earlier. In support of this construction, I would rely on three indications. First, the general presumption against retrospectivity. One does not expect rights conferred by the statute to be destroyed by events which took place before it was passed. Secondly, the word “successor” most naturally means successor to a secure tenancy. Although successor is a defined expression, the ordinary meaning of the word is part of the material which can be used to construe the definition. Thirdly, as I have said, there is the absence of any rational purpose in giving the definitions a retrospective effect. It follows that “he was a joint tenant and has become the sole tenant” in section 88(1)(b) means that he was a joint tenant under a secure tenancy and has become the sole tenant under a secure tenancy. When Mrs Betty Walker became sole tenant, it was not of a secure tenancy and she was therefore not a successor. I would therefore dismiss the appeal.” and the relevant parts of the said decision are extracted below: 45. It was further urged that Sections 153A and 153C must be interpreted in a manner that the object and purpose of search assessment is not frustrated. It was in this respect contended that by the time the impugned notices came to be issued, Section 153C existed in its amended avatar and it was the provision as it stood then which would apply. It was further submitted that the decisions in S.S. Gadgil, Brahm Dutt and C.B. Richards Ellis are clearly distinguishable since those pertained to Section 149 and not Section 153C. It was sought to be emphasized that since both the provisions stand couched in language

20 (2007) 3 All ER 445 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 102 of 179

which is clearly distinct and distinguishable, the aforenoted judgments would have no application. 46. It was then argued that a calculation of the period of ten AYs’ must be reckoned from the date of search and not from when documents are either handed over to a jurisdictional AO or when the Satisfaction Note in respect of a non-searched person is drawn. According to the respondents, bearing in mind the fact that the search in the present batch of cases was conducted on 18 October 2019 and the corresponding FY therefore being 2019-20, the equivalent AY would be AY 2020-21. In view of the aforesaid, they would contend that the calculation of six years would have to commence from AY 2019-20. Similarly, according to learned counsels appearing for the respondents, the ten years would have to be identified in a like manner. The respondents also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in RKM Powergen vs. ACIT21 47. They also sought to lay emphasis on the underlying objective of the 2017 Amending Act being a rationalization of the provisions in respect of time limits for completion of search assessment. According to learned counsels, if the aforesaid aspects were to be kept in the forefront, it would be evident that both the six year as well as the ten year period would be liable to be interpreted accordingly. It was submitted that a Satisfaction Note may come to be drawn in three possible scenarios: (a) at the time of or along with the initiation of and which, according to them, correctly enunciates how the “go back” period in terms of Section 153C is to be computed.

21 2022 SCC Online Mad 8995 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 103 of 179

proceedings against the searched person or (b) in the course of assessment proceedings under Section 153A of the Act or (c) immediately after assessment proceedings in the case of the searched person are completed. According to the respondents, the significance of the First Proviso to Section 153C is limited to the purpose of abatement of pending assessment and reassessment. 48. According to learned counsels, the reference point for abatement of pending assessment proceedings was put in place only to ensure that completed assessments in respect of the “other person” do not get abated. It was submitted that there is bound to be a time gap between the search and handing over of documents to the AO of a third person. This, since according to them, satisfaction with respect to the “other person” would require examination and investigation at different levels. However, they submitted that public interest requires that the right of the Department to tax income basis the seized material be preserved in the case of the searched person. 49. The respondents asserted that the submission of the writ petitioners that the six or the ten year block period is liable to be calculated from the date of handing over of documents to the AO of the non-searched person fails to take into consideration various practical difficulties which would necessarily arise. It was submitted that there would always be a time lag between examination of the seized material and recording of satisfaction in the case of the “other person” by the AO of the searched person and the handing over of the seized material to the jurisdictional AO of the “other person”. According to learned counsels, resultantly the period of six AYs’ as well as of the “relevant assessment year” of the searched person would never coincide with Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 104 of 179

those in the case of the “other person”, even though in both scenarios the trigger for assessment is the material seized in the course of search. According to learned counsels, the inevitable consequence of the above would be that the number of years which would effectively become available for the purposes of assessment under Section 153C of the Act would be lesser than those under Section 153A. They submitted that this eventuality would clearly come into existence notwithstanding the possibility of the incriminating material pertaining to the “other person” being available. It was further urged that if the contention of the writ petitioners were accepted, the year of search for the “other person” would itself get advanced beyond the actual year of initiation of search to the year of handing over and therefore be after an interval post the actual year in which the search was conducted. Resultantly, this would lead to a situation where the period of six AYs’ may comprise of a few AYs’ in respect of which there would be no seized material by virtue of the period intervening between the year of search and the year of actual handing over. 50. Insofar as the submissions addressed in the context of the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A is concerned, the respondents argued that the prescription of INR 50 lakhs is relevant only for the four additional AYs’ and those falling beyond the six AYs’. It was submitted that since in the present batch, the respondents have not opened any assessment beyond the six year period, the question of incriminating material amounting to INR 50 lakhs or more would not arise. This submission, however, is founded on the principal contention of the respondents that the concerned AYs’ are liable to be calculated from the date of search and not from the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 105 of 179

“other person”. It was also contended by the respondents that at the stage of issuance of notice, it would be unjustified to fetter the hands of the AO by requiring it to have formed a definitive opinion of income amounting to INR 50 lakhs or more having escaped assessment. It was submitted that the issuance of notice is triggered by a prima facie evaluation of the material gathered, and consequently, it would be wholly incorrect for the prescription of INR 50 lakhs being read as a necessary precondition or a definitive sine qua non. Emphasis was also laid on the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A using the expression “amounts to or is likely to amount to” to submit that this expression is itself indicative of the AO only being prima facie satisfied that income amounting to or exceeding INR 50 lakhs may have escaped assessment. Learned counsels also underlined the words “in aggregate” as occurring in the Fourth Proviso to submit that even if the prescription of INR 50 lakhs or more was satisfied on a cumulative computation of the six or the ten AYs’ period, the precondition as placed by virtue of the Fourth Proviso would stand satisfied. E. ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 51. Having noticed the rival submissions which were addressed, we now proceed with our analysis of the questions which stand posited. Prior to the insertion of Sections 153A, 153B, and 153C in the Chapter pertaining to procedure for assessment, an assessment in respect of search cases was governed and regulated by Chapter XIVB of the Act. The said Chapter comprising of Sections 158B to 158BH set out the procedure for assessment or reassessment proceedings being undertaken as a fallout of a search which may have been conducted. Chapter XIVB spoke of assessments being undertaken for a block Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 106 of 179

period comprising of six AYs’ preceding the previous year in which the search may have been conducted or a requisition made. In terms of Section 158BA, the total undisclosed income relating to the block period as determined was to be taxed at rates specified in Section 113 as income of the block period irrespective of the previous year or years to which such income related. In terms of the Explanation which stood placed in Section 158BA, the assessment under Chapter XIVB was to be in addition to regular assessment in respect of each previous year included in the block period. The Explanation to Section 158 BA is reproduced hereinbelow:- “Explanation- “For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that— (a) the assessment made under this Chapter shall be in addition to the regular assessment in respect of each previous year included in the block period; (b) the total undisclosed income relating to the block period shall not include the income assessed in any regular assessment as income of such block period; (c) the income assessed in this Chapter shall not be included in the regular assessment of any previous year included in the block period.” 52. As would be manifest from a reading of the various provisions that stood placed in that Chapter, they essentially contemplated and envisaged two separate assessments being undertaken, namely, one pertaining to the block period and which would get triggered pursuant to a search or a requisition made and the second consisting of a regular assessment proceeding parallelly and unconcerned with the computation of the undisclosed income identified for the said block period. Of equal significance was Section 158BA(3) of the Act and which read as follows:- Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 107 of 179

“158BA. Assessment of undisclosed income as a result of search.— xxx

xxx

xxx (3) Where the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that any part of income referred to in sub-section (1) relates to an assessment year for which the previous year has not ended or the date of filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for any previous year has not expired, and such income or the transactions relating to such income are recorded on or before the date of the search or requisition in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous years, the said income shall not be included in the block period.” 53. The aforesaid sub-section reinforces the scheme of Chapter XIVB requiring the block period assessment being undertaken independent of a regular assessment and thereby not contemplating a merger of the two assessment proceedings or abatement of pending assessments. Section 158BI came to be incorporated in Chapter XIVB by virtue of Finance Act 2003 with effect from 01 June 2003 and reads as under:- “158BI. Chapter not to apply after certain date.— The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply where a search is initiated under section 132, or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003.” 54. Sections 153A, 153B and 153C were introduced by virtue of Finance Act, 2003. The trinity provisions constituted a paradigm change in the manner in which search assessments were liable to be conducted. They set up a procedure clearly distinct from that which was envisaged under Chapter XIVB and were ordained to apply in respect of all searches or requisitions made after 31 May 2003. The fact that these provisions were envisaged to now govern and regulate all search assessments came to be reinforced by virtue of the introduction of Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 108 of 179

Section 158BI and thus bringing the curtains down on the block period assessment procedure set out in Chapter XIVB and which had held the field till then. 55. It would in this regard be pertinent to refer to the Notes on Clauses of the Finance Bill, 2003 relevant parts whereof are reproduced hereinbelow:- “Notes on Clauses xxx

xxx

xxx Clause 59 seeks to insert new sections 153A, 153B and 153C in the Income-tax Act relating to assessment in case of search or requisition made after 31st May, 2003, specifying time-limit for completion of assessment or reassessment of income and assessment of income of any other person in certain cases. The proposed new section 153A provides that in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, issue notices to such person requiring him to furnish within such period as may be specified in the notice the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to in clause (b) of section 153A, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of the Income-tax Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139. The Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the previous year during which such search is conducted or requisition is made and such assessment or reassessment shall be made in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. This clause also provides that the assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section, pending on the date of the initiation of the search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. This clause also provides that save as otherwise provided in section 153A, section 153B and section 153C, all other provisions of the Income-tax Act shall apply to the assessment or reassessment Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 109 of 179

made under this section and in the assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year. The proposed sub-section (1) of the new section 153B provides for the time-limit for completion of assessment in case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or assets are requisitioned under section 132A.It provides that the Assessing Officer shall make an order of assessment or reassessment in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to in clause (b) of section 153A, within a period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, was executed. The Assessing Officer shall make an order of assessment or reassessment in respect of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A, within a period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, was executed. This clause also provides that in computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this section, the period during which the assessment proceeding is stayed by an order or injunction of any court; or the period commencing from the day on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts audited under sub-section (2A) of section 142 and ending on the day on which the assessee is required to furnish a report of such audit under that sub-section, or the time taken in reopening the whole or any part of the proceeding or giving an opportunity to the assessee of being re-heard under the proviso to section 129, or in a case where an application made before the Settlement Commission under section 245C is rejected by it or is not allowed to be proceeded with by it, the period commencing on the date on which such application is made and ending with the date on which the order under sub-section (1) of section 245D is received by the Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section, shall be excluded. This clause also provides that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. The proposed sub-section (2) seeks to provide that the Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 110 of 179

authorisation referred to in clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to have been executed in the case of search, on the conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchnama drawn in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorisation has been issued and in the case of requisition made under section132A, on the actual receipt of the books of account or other documents or assets by the Authorised Officer. The proposed new section 153C provides for assessment or reassessment of income of any other person. Where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belong or belongs to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account, or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue such other person notice and assess or reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A.These amendments will take effect from 1st June, 2003.” 56. Section 153A, when finally introduced, commenced with a non- obstante clause giving it overriding effect over Sections 139,147 to 149, 151 and 153 in case of a person where a search may have been initiated or a requisition made after 31 May 2003. It provided that where a search comes to be initiated or where books of accounts or other documents or assets come to be requisitioned, the AO would require the searched person to furnish a return of income in respect of each AY falling within six AYs’ immediately preceding the AY relevant to the previous year in which search may have been conducted or requisition made. The First Proviso further stipulated that the AO would assess or reassess the total income in respect of each AY falling within the block of six AYs’. Of equal significance was the Second Proviso and which prescribed that if any proceedings relating to assessment or reassessment relating to the “relevant assessment year” spoken of Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 111 of 179

earlier were pending on the date of initiation of the search or on the making of a requisition, the same would abate. 57. While Section 153A pertained to assessment in case of the person searched, it undoubtedly laid in place the assessment machinery for the non-searched person and in respect of whom the search may have led to the identification of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, books of account, documents belonging to that “other person”. Section 153C did not lay in place a separate procedure for assessment and merely postulated that assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, would have to be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. In terms of Finance Act, 2005, a Proviso came to be inserted in section 153C(1) in the following terms:- “Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person.” 58. Clause 47 of the Notes on Clauses explained the intent underlying the introduction of this Proviso with retrospective effect from 01 June 2003 in the following words:- “Clause 47 seeks to amend section 153C of the Income-tax Act relating to assessment of income of any other person. Under the existing provisions of section 153A, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that books of account or documents or assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section132A belong to a person other than a person in whose case search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A was made, he shall handover the same to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against such other person under section 153A. Second proviso to section 153A provides that assessment or Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 112 of 179

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in the said section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. It is proposed to amend the said section so as to provide that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having the jurisdiction over such other person. It is further proposed to insert a new sub-section (2) so as to provide that for assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A in case of other person, where (a) no return of income has been furnished by such person and no notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) are turn of income has been furnished by such person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, such Assessing Officer shall issue the notice and assess or reassess total income of such other person for such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A. The provisions of proposed new subsection (2) would apply where books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned referred to in sub- section (1) has been received by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person after the due date for furnishing the return of income for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st June,2003 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or in relation to books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st May, 2003.” 59. The recast Section 153C, as amended by the Finance Act, 2005 read as under:- Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 113 of 179

“153C. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147 , section 148, section 149 ,section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue such other person notice and assess or reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A : Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. (2) Where books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned as referred to in sub-section (1) has or have been received by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person after the due date for furnishing the return of income for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A and in respect of such assessment year— (a) no return of income has been furnished by such other person and no notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, such Assessing Officer shall issue the notice and assess or reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A.” Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 114 of 179

(1) of the said section 153C provide that notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belong to any person, other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue such other person notice and assess or reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. It is proposed to amend section 153C of the Act to provide that notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to any person, other than the person referred to in section 153A, then books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue such other person notice and assess or reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A if he Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 115 of 179

is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A . The amendment will take effect from 1st October, 2014.” 62. Clause 53 of the Notes on clauses explaining the amendment to Section 153C introduced vide the 2014 Finance Act is reproduced hereinbelow: “Clause 53 of the Bill seeks to amend section 153C of the Income-tax Act relating to assessment of income of any other person. The existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of the aforesaid section provide that notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person, other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue such other person notice and assess or reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. It is proposed to amend the said sub-section so as to provide that notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person, other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, such Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 116 of 179

the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A. This amendment will take effect from 1st October, 2014.” 63. The recast Section 153C, as amended vide the 2014 Finance Act is set out below: “Assessment of income of any other person. 153C. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A] [Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to sub- section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person: Provided further that the Central Government may by rules made by it and published in the Official Gazette, specify the class or classes of cases in respect of such other person, in which the Assessing Officer shall not be required to issue notice for assessing or reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated. (2) Where books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned as referred to in sub-section (1) has or have been received by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person after the due date for furnishing the return of Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 117 of 179

income for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A and in respect of such assessment year — (a) no return of income has been furnished by such other person and no notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, such Assessing Officer shall issue the notice and assess or reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A.” 64. The next and crucial amendments which came to be made in Sections 153A, 153B and 153C were introduced by virtue of the Finance Bill, 2017 and which for the first time adopted the concept of the “relevant assessment year” and provided an explanation for the said term. The definition of the expression “relevant assessment year” also came to be introduced by virtue of this Bill. It would at this stage be apposite to set out a comparative table which would indicate how Sections 153A and 153C existed between Finance Acts, 2015 and 2017:- “Income-Tax Act, 1961 - As Amended by Finance Act 2015 Income-Tax Act, 1961 - As Amended by Finance Act 2017 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 118 of 179

Assessment in case of search or requisition.: 153A. [(1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148,section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139;

(b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made: Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of Assessment in case of search or requisition : 153A. [(1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149,section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years [and for the relevant assessment year or years] referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139; (b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made [and for the relevant assessment year or years]: Provided that the Assessing Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 119 of 179

each assessment year falling within such six assessment years:

Provided further that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this[sub-section] pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate: [Provided also that the Central Government may by rules made by it and published in the Official Gazette (except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated under the second proviso),specify the class or classes of cases in which the Assessing Officer shall not be required to issue notice for assessing or reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made.] [(2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub- section(1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years [and for the relevant assessment year or years]: Provided further that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years [and for the relevant assessment year or years] referred to in this[sub- section] pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate: [Provided also that the Central Government may by rules made by it and published in the Official Gazette (except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated under the second proviso),specify the class or classes of cases in which the Assessing Officer shall not be required to issue notice for assessing or reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made[and for the relevant assessment year or years]:] [Provided also that no notice for assessment or reassessment shall be issued by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment year or years unless— (a) the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 120 of 179

to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner: Provided that such revival shall cease to have effect, if such order of annulment is set aside.] Explanation. —For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that,— (i) save as otherwise provided in this section, section 153B and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year.

or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more in the relevant assessment year or in aggregate in the relevant assessment years; (b) the income referred to in clause (a) or part thereof has escaped assessment for such year or years; and (c) the search under section 132 is initiated or requisition under section 132A is made on or after the 1st day of April, 2017. Explanation 1. —For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "relevant assessment year" shall mean an assessment year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than ten assessment years from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made. Explanation 2. —For the purposes of the fourth proviso, "asset" shall include immovable property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.] [(2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub- section(1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 121 of 179

proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner: Provided that such revival shall cease to have effect, if such order of annulment is set aside.] Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that,— (i) save as otherwise provided in this section, section 153B and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year.”

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 122 of 179

153C. [(1)] [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person ] [and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A] :]

[Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the 153C. [(1)] [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person] [and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person [for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and] for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A] :] [Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 123 of 179

search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to [sub-section (1) of] section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person :]

[Provided further that the Central Government may by rules made by it and published in the Official Gazette, specify the class or classes of cases in respect of such other person, in which the Assessing Officer shall not be required to issue notice for assessing or reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated.]

[(2) Where books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned as referred to in subsection (1) has or have been received by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person after the due date for furnishing the return of income for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A and in respect of such assessment search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to [sub-section (1) of] section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person :]

[Provided further that the Central Government may by rules made by it and published in the Official Gazette, specify the class or classes of cases in respect of such other person, in which the Assessing Officer shall not be required to issue notice for assessing or reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made [and for the relevant assessment year or years as referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A] except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated.]

[(2) Where books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned as referred to in subsection (1) has or have been received by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person after the due date for furnishing the return of income for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A and in respect of such assessment Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 124 of 179

year—

(a) no return of income has been furnished by such other person and no notice under subsection (1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or

(b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under subsection (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or

(c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, such Assessing Officer shall issue the notice and assess or reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A.]

year—

(a) no return of income has been furnished by such other person and no notice under subsection (1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or

(b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under subsection (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or

(c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, such Assessing Officer shall issue the notice and assess or reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A.]

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 125 of 179

on or after 01 April 2021. The aforesaid amendments appear to have been triggered by the schematic amendments which came to be introduced in Sections 145 to 151 and the procedure for reassessment inquiry being radically amended consequent to the introduction of Section 148A. The time limit for initiation of action also came to be amended with Section 149 being recast. For purposes which may be germane to the present batch, we also take note of the addition of the First and Second Provisos to Section 149 and which are extracted hereunder:- “149. Time limit for notice.— xxxx

xxxx

xxxx Provided that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if a notice under Section 148 or Section 153-A or Section 153-C could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this section or Section 153-A or Section 153-C, as the case may be, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021: Provided further that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in a case, where a notice under Section 153-A, or Section 153-C read with Section 153-A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under Section 132-A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021” 67. The 2021 amendments also saw the introduction of a significant statutory shift insofar as assessments or reassessments triggered by a search were concerned and which came to be made part of the escaped assessment regime by virtue of the introduction of Explanation 2 in Section 148 which reads as follows:- “148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 126 of 179

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, where,— (i) a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Section 132-A, on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, in the case of the assessee; or (ii) a survey is conducted under Section 133-A, other than under sub-section (2-A) of that section, on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, in the case of the assessee; or (iii) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned under Section 132 or under Section 132-A in case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, belongs to the assessee; or (iv) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, that any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned under Section 132 or Section 132-A in case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relate to, the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to have information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee [where] the search is initiated or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned or survey is conducted in the case of the assessee or money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents are seized or requisitioned in case of any other person.” 68. Although Section 148A made specific provisions for the assessee being placed on notice and being provided with the opportunity to explain why reassessment should not be initiated and any objections connected therewith being liable to be decided before reassessment was undertaken, reassessments triggered by a search were excluded from the ambit of that provision as would be manifest from a reading of the Proviso to Section 148A and which is couched in the following terms:- Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 127 of 179

“148-A. Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice under Section 148. xxxx

xxxx

xxxx Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply in a case where, — (a) a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Section 132-A in the case of the assessee on or after the 1st day of April, 2021; or (b) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized in a search under Section 132 or requisitioned under Section 132-A, in the case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, belongs to the assessee; or (c) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that any books of account or documents, seized in a search under Section 132 or requisitioned under Section 132-A, in case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, [relate to, the assessee; or (d) the Assessing Officer has received any information under the scheme notified under Section 135-A pertaining to income chargeable to tax escaping assessment for any assessment year in the case of the assessee.” 69. Section 149 of the Act, which sets out the time limit for the issuance of a notice under Section 148, and which prior to 01 April 2021, contemplated of a maximum period of six years having elapsed from the end of the relevant AY, also came to be amended with the following qualifying clauses being introduced:- “149. Time limit for notice.— (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); (b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 128 of 179

unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of— (i) an asset; (ii) expenditure in respect of a transaction or in relation to an event or occasion; or (iii) an entry or entries in the books of account, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more: 70. Section 153(3A) of the Act also introduced the following salient provisions relevant to search assessments:- “153. Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation xxxx

xxxx

xxxx (3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (1A), (2) and 93), where an assessment or reassessment is pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, the period available for completion of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, under the said sub-sections shall, - (a) in a case where such search is initiated under section 132 or such requisition is made under section 132A; (b) in the case of an assessee, to whom any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized or requisitioned belongs to; (c) in the case of an assessee, to whom any books of a account or documents seized or requisitioned pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, be extended by twelve months.” 71. Of equal significance is Section 153(8) and which makes the following provisions:- “153. Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 129 of 179

xxx

xxx

xxx (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, sub-section (2) of section 153A or sub- section (1) of section 153B, the order of assessment or reassessment, relating to any assessment year, which stands revived under sub-section (2) of section 153A, shall be made within a period of one year from the end of the month of such revival or within the period specified in this section or sub-section (1) of section 153B, whichever is later.” Sub-section (8) thus caters to situations where pending assessment or reassessment proceedings may abate by virtue of Section 153A(1) and be read in line with the timelines prescribed by Section 153B. 72. Reverting then to the principal provisions made in Section 153A and as the provision stands presently, we find that it essentially enables the AO to issue notice to the searched person requiring it to submit a return of income in respect of each AY falling within the six AYs’ as well as for the “relevant assessment year”. As noticed hereinabove, all pending assessments or reassessments pertaining to the period of six AYs’ or the “relevant assessment year” would abate in light of the Second Proviso to Section 153A(1). The aforenoted provision defines the expression “relevant assessment year” in terms of Explanation 1 as under:- “Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression “relevant assessment year” shall mean an assessment year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than ten assessment years from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made.” 73. Section 153A(1), in addition to the above, also erects the following additional conditions which must be shown to exist in case a Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 130 of 179

notice for assessment or reassessment is proposed to be issued for the “relevant assessment year” and comprising the larger block of ten AYs’. The aforesaid conditions stand introduced by virtue of the Fourth Proviso which is extracted hereunder:- “153A. Assessment in case of search or requisition xxxx

xxxx

xxxx Provided also that no notice for assessment or reassessment shall be issued by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment year or years unless— (a) the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more in the relevant assessment year or in aggregate in the relevant assessment years; (b) the income referred to in clause (a) or part thereof has escaped assessment for such year or years; and (c) the search under section 132 is initiated or requisition under section 132A is made on or after the 1st day of April, 2017.” The Fourth Proviso thus puts in place certain preconditions which regulate assessment or reassessment for the four additional AYs’ which would fall within the meaning of the expression “relevant assessment year” and fall beyond the six AYs’ immediately preceding the AY relevant to the previous year which stands covered by Section 153A(1)(b). 74. Section 153C, as it stood on the date when the impugned notices came to be issued, proceeding along similar lines is statutorily proclaimed to override the provisions of Section 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153. The said provision enables the AO of a non-searched party to commence proceedings for assessment or reassessment for six Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 131 of 179

AYs’ immediately preceding the AY relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition made and for the “relevant assessment year” as defined by Section 153A. The aforenoted provision comes into play the moment the AO of the searched person comes to discover that some money, bullion, jewellery, valuable article or thing seized or requisitioned belongs to or books of account, documents seized or requisition pertain or pertains to a person other than the person searched and covered by Section 153A. The AO of the searched person, on being satisfied that the aforenoted conditions are fulfilled, is obliged to transmit the books of account or documents and assets seized or requisitioned to the AO having jurisdiction over the non-searched person. Upon receipt of that material from the AO of the searched person, the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched party becomes empowered to call upon that person by issuance of notice to submit a return for the preceding six AYs’ and for the “relevant assessment year”. In terms of Section 153C, upon receipt of the material from the AO of the searched person, the jurisdictional AO is obliged in law to be satisfied that the books of accounts or documents or assets seized “…….have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person……”. F. IDENTIFICATION OF THE COMMENCEMENT POINT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF THE SIX AND TEN YEAR BLOCK 75. The First Proviso to Section 153C significantly shifts the reference point which is spoken of in Section 153A(1) while defining the point from which the period of six AYs’ is to be calculated, and which stipulates it to be the date of search or requisition, to the date of Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 132 of 179

receipt of books of accounts, documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. The Proviso, thus by virtue of a deeming legal fiction, shifts the commencement point from the date of initiation of search or making of requisition to the date of receipt of books, documents or assets by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. The shift of the relevant date in the case of a non-searched person thus being governed and regulated by the First Proviso of Section 153C(1) is, however, an issue which is no longer res integra. This aspect came to be duly noticed and lucidly explained by our Court in the matter of SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy CIT22 “14. Now, there can be a situation when during the search conducted on one person under section 132, some documents or valuable assets or books of account belonging to some other person, in whose case the search is not conducted, may be found. In such case, the Assessing Officer has to first be satisfied under section 153C, which provides for the assessment of income of any other person, i.e., any other person who is not covered by the search, that the books of account or other valuable article or document belongs to the other person (person other than the one searched). He shall hand over the valuable article or books of account or document to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person has to proceed against him and issue notice to that person in order to assess or reassess the income of such other person in the manner contemplated by the provisions of section 153A. Now, a question may arise as to the applicability of the second proviso to section 153A in the case of the other person, in order to examine the question of pending proceedings which have to abate. In the case of the searched person, the date with reference to which the proceedings for assessment or reassessment of any assessment year within the period of the six assessment years shall abate, is the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or the requisition under section 132A. For instance, in the present case, with reference to the Puri group of companies, such date will be January 5, 2009. . The relevant extracts of SSP Aviation Ltd are set out hereinunder:

22 2012 SCC Online Del 1898 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 133 of 179

However, in the case of the other person, which, in the present case, is the petitioner herein, such date will be the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisition by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. In the case of the other person, the question of pendency and abatement of the proceedings of assessment or reassessment to the six assessment years will be examined with reference to such date.” 76. Following SSP Aviation, our Court in Commissioner of Income Tax – 14 v. Shree Jasjit Singh23 “3. The question raised before the ITAT was with reference to the first proviso to Section l 53C (1). The ITAT has relied upon the judgment of this Court in SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 252 CTR (Del) 291, which in para 14 held that while in the case of the searched person, the date with reference to which the proceedings for assessment or reassessment of any assessment year within the period of the six assessment years shall abate shall be the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or the requisition under Section 132A, in the case of the other person (like the Assessee in the present case) "such date will be the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisition by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. In the case of the other person, the question of pendency and abatement of the proceedings of assessment or reassessment to the six assessment years will be examined with reference to such date". held:- 4. Although, the ITAT has also referred to its own decision in the case of DSL Properties Pvt. Ltd., which decision is pending consideration in ITA No. 585 of 2013 in this Court, in which a question of law has been framed, the decision in SSP Aviation Ltd. (supra) puts the matter beyond all doubt. In addition, the Court has been shown by learned counsel for the Respondent a circular dated 31st March 2014 issued by the CBDT, containing the guidelines regarding Section 153C of the Act. Para 2.5 of the said circular clarifies as under: “The AO of the other person assumes jurisdiction under Section 153C with the receipt of the relevant seized material from the AO of the searched person. Also, a copy of the satisfaction received from the AO of the searched person in this regard would enable him to proceed further in the case of the other person under Section 153C.

23 Delhi High Court order dated 11.08.2015 in ITA 337/2015 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 134 of 179

Though there is no statutory requirement for the AO of such other person to record any satisfaction/reason before issuing notice under Section 153C and proceeding further, considering the above aspects, it is advisable for maintaining institutional memory that the AO records receipt of the seized material and the satisfaction from the AO of the searched person and such recording/noting may be kept in the assessment folder of such other person. In case, the AO of the searched person exercises jurisdiction over the other person also, appropriate referencing should be made in the relevant assessment records of such other person.” 5. It may be noted that in the present case satisfaction note was prepared by the AO on 25th February 2010. Consequently, the finding of the ITAT in the present case that the assessment made under Section 143(1) of the Act for the AY 2009-10 was not valid, calls for no interference . No substantial question of law arises in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 135 of 179

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx 15. The controversy in this regard is no longer res integra. A co- ordinate Bench of this court in SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (2012) 346 ITR 177 (Delhi) has held that (page 188): "In the case of the searched person, the date with reference to which proceedings for assessment or reassessment of any assessment year within a period of six assessment years shall abate, is the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A. .. However, in the case of other person. .. such date will be the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisition by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. In the case of other person, the question of pendency and abatement of the proceedings of assessment or reassessment to the six assessment years will be examined with reference to such date"

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx 17. In Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Delhi), this court had explained that on a plain reading of section 153C of the Act, a notice under that section could be issued only after two preceding conditions had been met. First of all, the Assessing Officer of the searched person would have to arrive at a satisfaction that document or asset seized does not belong to the person searched but to some other person and, secondly, the seized documents/assets are handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over that person, that is, the person other than the one searched and to whom the seized documents/assets are said to belong. The relevant extract of the said decision is quoted below (page 117): "On a plain reading of section 153C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be 'satisfied' that, inter alia, any document seized or requisitioned 'belongs to' a person other than the searched person. It is only then that the Assessing Officer of the searched person can handover such document to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person (other than the searched person). Furthermore, it is only after such handing over that the Assessing Officer of such other person can issue a notice to that person and assess or reassess his income in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. Therefore, before a notice under section 153C can be issued two steps have to be taken. The Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 136 of 179

first step is that the Assessing Officer of the person who is searched must arrive at a clear satisfaction that a document seized from him does not belong to him but to some other person. The second step is—after such satisfaction is arrived at—that the document is handed over to the Assessing Officer of the person to whom the said document 'belongs'. In the present cases, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the first step itself has not been fulfilled. For this purpose, it would be necessary to examine the provisions of presumptions as indicated above. Section 132(4A)(i) clearly stipulates that when, inter alia, any document is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search it may be presumed that such document belongs to such person. It is similarly provided in section 292C(1)(i). In other words, whenever a document is found from a person who is being searched the normal presumption is that the said document belongs to that person. It is for the Assessing Officer to rebut that presumption and come to a conclusion or 'satisfaction' that the document in fact belongs to somebody else. There must be some cogent material available with the Assessing Officer before he/she arrives at the satisfaction that the seized document does not belong to the searched person but to somebody else. Surmise and conjecture cannot take the place of 'satisfaction'.. .. It is evident from the above satisfaction note that apart from saying that the documents belonged to the petitioner and that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of a notice under section 153C, there is nothing which would indicate as to how the presumptions which are to be normally raised as indicated above, have been rebutted by the Assessing Officer. Mere use or mention of the word 'satisfaction' or the words 'I am satisfied' in the order or the note would not meet the requirement of the concept of satisfaction as used in section 153C of the said Act. The satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person. We are afraid that going through the contents of the satisfaction note, we are unable to discern any 'satisfaction' of the kind required under section 153C of the said Act." Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 137 of 179

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx 19. The Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Gopi Apartment (2014) 365 ITR 411 (All) has expressed a similar view in the following words (page 419): "A bare perusal of the provision contained in section 153C of the Income-tax Act leaves no doubt that, as is provided under section 158BD, where the Assessing Officer, while proceeding under section 153A against a person who has been subjected to search and seizure under section 132(1) or has been proceeded under section 132A, is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that the Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue such other person notice and assess or reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. Thus, there are two stages: The first stage comprises of a search and seizure operation under section 132 or proceeding under section 132A against a person, who may be referred as 'the searched person'. Based on such search and seizure, assessment proceedings are initiated against the 'searched person' under section 153A. At the time of initiation of such proceedings against the 'searched person' or during the assessment proceedings against him or even after the completion of the assessment proceedings against him, the Assessing Officer of such a 'searched person', may, if he is satisfied, that any money, document, etc., belongs to a person other than the searched person, then such money, documents, etc., are to be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over 'such other person'. The second stage commences from the recording of such satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the 'searched person' followed by handing over of all the requisite documents, etc., to the Assessing Officer of such 'other person', thereafter followed by issuance of the notice of the proceedings under section 153C read Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 138 of 179

with section 153A against such 'other person'. The initiation of proceedings against 'such other person' are dependant upon a satisfaction being recorded. Such satisfaction may be during the search or at the time of initiation of assessment proceedings against the 'searched person', or even during the assessment proceedings against him or even after completion of the same, but before issuance of notice to the 'such other person' under section 153C. Even in a case, where the Assessing Officer of both the persons is the same and assuming that no handing over of documents is required, the recording of 'satisfaction' is a must, as, that is the foundation, upon which the subsequent proceedings against the 'other person' are initiated. The handing over of documents, etc., in such a case may or may not be of much relevance but the recording of satisfaction is still required and in fact it is mandatory."

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx 24. As discussed hereinbefore, in terms of the proviso to section 153C of the Act, a reference to the date of the search under the second proviso to section 153A of the Act has to be construed as the date of handing over of assets/documents belonging to the assessee (being the person other than the one searched) to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction to assess the said assessee. Further proceedings, by virtue of section 153C(1) of the Act would have to be in accordance with section 153A of the Act and the reference to the date of search would have to be construed as the reference to the date of recording of satisfaction. It would follow that the six assessment years for which assessments/reassessments could be made under section 153C of the Act would also have to be construed with reference to the date of handing over of assets/documents to the Assessing Officer of the assessee. In this case, it would be the date of the recording of satisfaction under section 153C of the Act, i.e., September 8, 2010. In this view, the assessments made in respect of the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 would be beyond the period of six assessment years as reckoned with reference to the date of recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the searched person. It is contended by the Revenue that the relevant six assessment years would be the assessment years prior to the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. If this interpretation as canvassed by the Revenue is accepted, it would mean that whereas in case of a person searched, assessments in Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 139 of 179

relation to six previous years preceding the year in which the search takes place can be reopened but in case of any other person, who is not searched but his assets are seized from the searched person, the period for which the assessments could be reopened would be much beyond the period of six years. This is so because the date of handing over of assets/documents of a person, other than the searched person, to the Assessing Officer would be subsequent to the date of the search. This, in our view, would be contrary to the scheme of section 153C(1) of the Act, which construes the date of receipt of assets and documents by the Assessing Officer of the assessee (other than one searched) as the date of the search on the assessee. The rationale appears to be that whereas in the case of a searched person the Assessing Officer of the searched person assumes possession of the seized assets/documents on search of the assessee; the seized assets/documents belonging to a person other than a searched person come into possession of the Assessing Officer of that person only after the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the assets/documents do not belong to the searched person. Thus, the date on which the Assessing Officer of the person other than the one searched assumes the possession of the seized assets would be the relevant date for applying the provisions of section 153A of the Act. We, therefore, accept the contention that in any view of the matter, assessment for the assessment year 2003-04 and the assessment year 2004-05 were outside the scope of section 153C of the Act and the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to make an assessment of the assessee's income for that year.” 78. In the appeal which was taken to the Supreme Court against the judgment rendered by this Court in Jasjit Singh, the view as expressed by our Court in that decision came to be affirmed with the following significant observations being entered:- “8. In SSP Aviation (supra) the High Court inter alia reasoned as follows:— “14. Now there can be a situation when during the search conducted on one person under Section 132, some documents or valuable assets or books of account belonging to some other person, in whose case the search is not conducted, may be found. In such case, the Assessing Officer has to first be satisfied under Section 153C, which provides for the assessment of income of any other person, i.e., any other person who is not covered by the search, that the books of account or other valuable article or document Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 140 of 179

belongs to the other person (person other than the one searched). He shall hand over the valuable article or books of account or document to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person has to proceed against him and issue notice to that person in order to assess or reassess the income of such other person in the, manner contemplated by the provisions of Section 153A. Now a question may arise as to the applicability of the second proviso to Section 153A in the case of the other person, in order to examine the question of pending proceedings which have to abate. In the case of the searched person, the date with reference to which the proceedings for assessment or reassessment of any assessment year within the period of the six assessment years shall abate, is the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or the requisition under Section 132A. For instance, in the present case, with reference to the Puri Group of Companies, such date will be 5.1.2009. However, in the case of the other person, which in the present case is the petitioner herein, such date will be the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisition by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. In the case of the other person, the question of pendency and abatement of the proceedings of assessment or reassessment to the six assessment years will be examined with reference to such date.” 9. It is evident on a plain interpretation of Section 153C(1) that the Parliamentary intent to enact the proviso was to cater not merely to the question of abatement but also with regard to the date from which the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of which the returns were to be filed by the third party (whose premises are not searched and in respect of whom the specific provision under Section 153-C was enacted. The revenue argued that the proviso [to Section 153(c)(1)] is confined in its application to the question of abatement. 10. This Court is of the opinion that the revenue's argument is insubstantial and without merit. It is quite plausible that without the kind of interpretation which SSP Aviation adopted, the A.O. seized of the materials - of the search party, under Section 132 - would take his own time to forward the papers and materials belonging to the third party, to the concerned A.O. In that event if the date would virtually “relate back” as is sought to be contended by the revenue, (to the date of the seizure), the prejudice caused to the third party, who would be drawn into proceedings as it were unwittingly (and in many cases have no concern with it at all), is dis-proportionate. For instance, if the papers are in fact assigned Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 141 of 179

under Section 153-C after a period of four years, the third party assessee's prejudice is writ large as it would have to virtually preserve the records for at latest 10 years which is not the requirement in law. Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be attributed to Parliament. On the other hand, a plain reading of Section 153-C supports the interpretation which this Court adopts.” 79. The fact that in the case of a Section 153C assessment, the starting point is ordained to be the handing over of books of account or documents or assets seized and that event constituting the point from which the preceding six AYs’ or the “relevant assessment year” is to be computed stands reiterated by the Supreme Court in Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, as would be evident from the following paragraphs of the report:- “41. Thus, as per the proviso to Section 153C as inserted vide Finance Act, 2005, and the effect of the said proviso is that it creates a deeming fiction wherein any reference made to the date of initiation of search is deemed to be a reference made to the date when the Assessing Officer of the non-searched person receives the books of account or documents or assets seized etc. Thus, in the present case, even though the search under Section 132 was initiated prior to the amendment to Section 153C w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the books of account or documents or assets were seized by the Assessing Officer of the non-searched person only on 25.04.2017, which is subsequent to the amendment, therefore, when the notice under Section 153C was issued on 04.05.2018, the provision of the law existing as on that date, i.e., the amended Section 153C shall be applicable.” 80. The aforesaid discussion thus renders a determinative quietus to the identification of the starting post from which the block of six AYs’ or the “relevant assessment year” would have to be calculated. The contention of the respondents that the said block periods would have to be reckoned with reference to the date of search thus can neither be countenanced nor possibly accepted. That submission is clearly addressed contrary to a long and consistent line of precedents which Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 142 of 179

have held to the contrary and which unequivocally accepted the point of commencement for the purposes of identifying the six or the “relevant assessment year” to be etched from the date of handover of documents, assets or things to the AO of the non-searched party. 81. As was noticed by us hereinabove, the respondents had also sought to urge that the First Proviso to Section 153C(1) is relevant only for the purposes of abatement of pending assessment or reassessment proceedings and which is spoken of in Section 153A(1). According to them, since the First Proviso to Section 153C(1) is linked to the Second Proviso to Section 153A(1), it must be interpreted as being confined and restricted to the subject of abatement and cannot be viewed as constructing the point from which the block of six AYs’ or the “relevant assessment year” is to be computed. They had in this connection referred to the judgement rendered by our Court in Sarwar Agency and where an identical submission was addressed as would be evident from a reading of paragraph 6 of the report and which reads as follows: “6. The case of the Revenue is that the first proviso to section 153C refers only to the second proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act, which only indicates that any assessment relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years which is pending as of the initiation of search shall abate. Therefore, the second proviso to section 153C is also concerned only with the aspect of abatement of pending assessments. According to the Revenue, this makes no difference to the computation of the block of six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. In other words, according to the Revenue, the block period for both the searched person and the "other person" would remain the same notwithstanding that there may be some delay in transmitting the documents recovered during the search which belong or pertain to the "other person" to the Assessing Officer of such other person.” Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 143 of 179

(i) The bar of limitation: both limbs of this ground have been considered and rejected by me as per orders dated 12-7-2022, 15.07.22 and 26-7-2022, extracted below: Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 144 of 179

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx 26-7-2022: 11. Reliance is also placed upon two decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. and Pr. CIT v. Sarwar Agency (P.) Ltd. In both cases the view that the block of six years must be construed as commencing from the date of handing over of the documents seized by the officer of the searched entity to the officer of the third party, that is, petitioner in this case. 12. I am of the considered view that the proviso has no application in the construction of the block period. Section 153C deals with the assessment of income of any other person in relation to the searched person and section 153C(1) reads as under: Assessment of income of any other person. 153C. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person [for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1)of section 153A] 13. There is thus an in-built mechanism in 153C(1) as to how the block period is to be formulated. No doubt, the portion within parenthesis has been inserted only with Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 145 of 179

effect from 1- 4-2017 and has no application in the case of the petitioner seeing as the date of search in its case ranges between 21-3-2015 to 11-1-2016. However, one hardly need to refer this portion, since the construction of the block is detailed in the last portion of section 153C(1) that states 'for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153(1). xxxx

xxxx

xxxx 15. Thus, the block is to comprise of the those assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made. Seen in this context, the inclusion of assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 in the case of RKM Powergen Limited and 2010-11 in the case of RK Powergen Private Limited is seen to be in order. 16. The first proviso to section 153C only deals with the date of initiation of search for the purpose of the second proviso to section 153A(1) to determine the abatement for the sake of completion….” 84. As would be evident from the above, although the decisions in Sarwar Agency and RRJ Securities were cited, the learned Judge chose to observe that the Section 153C(1) Proviso would only be liable to be construed as relevant for the purposes of abatement. We find ourselves unable to sustain that line of reasoning since both Sarwar Agency as well as RRJ Securities have struck a line which is in consonance with the view taken in SSP Aviation and which has since come to be affirmed by the Supreme Court in Jasjit Singh. In any case, the law as enunciated in RKM Powergen would not sustain bearing in mind the express enunciation of the legal position by the Supreme Court as is manifest from a reading of paragraph 9 of Jasjit Singh. 85. That then takes us to the principal question of identifying the point of origin for the purposes of computation of the six AYs’ and the “relevant assessment year” as defined by Section 153A. As is manifest Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 146 of 179

from a plain reading of Section 153C, the six AYs’ are ordained to be those which immediately precede the AY relevant to the previous year in which the search may have been conducted or requisition made. The block of six AYs’ would thus have to be identified bearing in mind the AY pertaining to the FY in which the search had been conducted or requisition made. The aforesaid AY would thus constitute the anchor point for the purposes of identification of the six AYs’. The statute envisages a similar process to be adopted for the purposes of computation of the “relevant assessment year” and where applicable constructs a block of ten AYs’. The significant difference between the two however is that while the six AYs’ hinge upon the phrase “immediately preceding” the AY pertaining to the search year, the ten AYs’ are liable to be computed or reckoned from the end of the AY relevant to the year of search. In our considered opinion, the petitioners have correctly identified the aforesaid distinction as being crucial and determinative for the purposes of reckoning the six and the ten AY block period. G. COMPUTATION OF THE SIX AND TEN YEAR BLOCK IN THE PRESENT BATCH OF WRIT PETITIONS 86. In the present batch, List I pertains to writ petitions which have Satisfaction Notes recorded or Section 153C notices issued between the period 01 April 2021 to 31 March 2022. Undisputedly, the First Proviso to Section 153C, and which has been consistently recognized to also embody the commencement point for reckoning the six or the ten AYs’, shifts the relevant date from the date of initiation of search or a requisition made to the date of receipt of books of account or documents and assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the non- Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 147 of 179

searched person. Consequently, the block of six or ten AYs’ would have to be reckoned bearing the aforesaid date in mind. Although in the present batch of writ petitions, the date of actual handing over has not been explicitly mentioned in a majority of the writ petitions, learned counsels for respective sides had addressed submissions based on the assumption that it would be the date of issuance of the Satisfaction Note by the AO of the non-searched person and in the case of non- availability of such a note, the date of issuance of the Section 153C notices which would be pertinent for the purposes of the First Proviso to Section 153C. 87. Assuming, therefore, that the handover of material gathered in the course of the search and pertaining to the non-searched person occurred between 01 April 2021 to 31 March 2022, the same would essentially constitute FY 2021-22 as being the previous year of search for the purposes of the non-searched entity. As a necessary corollary, the relevant AY would become AY 2022-23. AY 2022-23 would thus constitute the starting point for the purposes of identifying the six years which are spoken of in Section 153C. The six AYs’ are envisaged to be those which immediately precede the AY so identified with reference to the previous year of search. It would thus lead us to conclude that it would be the six AYs’ immediately preceding AY 2022-23 which could have formed the basis for initiation of action under Section 153C. Consequently, and reckoned backward, the six relevant AYs’ would be:- Computation of the six-year block period as provided under Section 153C of the Act No. of years Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 148 of 179

AY 2021-22 1 AY 2020-21 2 AY 2019-20 3 AY 2018-19 4 AY 2017-18 5 AY 2016-17 6

Consequently, AY 2021-22 would become the first of the six preceding AYs’ and would as per the table set out hereinabove terminate at AY 2016-17. 88. Section 153A replicates the basis on which the six AYs’ are to be identified and computed with the solitary distinction being that in the case of the searched person, the six AYs’ are liable to be computed from the AY pertaining to the FY in which the search was conducted. The starting point for the purposes of identifying the six AYs’ in the case of Section 153A would thus turn upon the year of search as opposed to the handover of material which is spoken of in the First Proviso to Section 153C. If one were to therefore assume that a search took place on a person between 01 April 2021 to 31 March 2022, the pertinent AY would become AY 2022-23 and the corresponding six AYs’ would be as follows:- Computation of the six-year block period as provided under Section 153C of the Act No. of years AY 2021-22 1 AY 2020-21 2 AY 2019-20 3 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 149 of 179

AY 2018-19 4 AY 2017-18 5 AY 2016-17 6

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 150 of 179

AY 2019-20 4 AY 2018-19 5 AY 2017-18 6 AY 2016-17 7 AY 2015-16 8 AY 2014-15 9 AY 2013-14 10

1st Year 2019-20 2nd Year 2018-19 3rd Year 2017-18 4th Year 2016-17 5th Year 2015-16 6th Year 2014-15 7th Year 2013-14 8th Year 2012-13 9th Year 2011-12 10th Year 2010-11 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 151 of 179

The case on hand pertains to AY 2009-10. It is obviously beyond the ten year outer ceiling limit prescribed by the statute. The terminal point is the tenth year calculated from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted. The long arm of the law can go up to this terminal point and not one day beyond. When the statute is clear and admits of no ambiguity, it has to be strictly construed and there is no scope for looking to the explanatory notes appended to statute or circular issued by the department.

In our considered opinion, the decision in A.R. Safiullah correctly expounds the legal position and the interpretation liable to be accorded Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 152 of 179

to the identification of the ten AYs’ which are spoken of in Sections 153A and 153C. 92. List II, forming part of this batch pertains to cases where Satisfaction Notes of the AO of the non-searched person were drawn between the period 01 April 2022 to 31 March 2023 and 01 April 2023 to 31 March 2024. Tested on the principles enunciated by us in the preceding passages of this judgment, we come to the conclusion that the relevant six AYs’ would comprise the following years, when computed for the period 01 April 2022 to 31 March 2023:- Computation of the six-year block period as provided under Section 153C of the Act No. of years AY 2022-23 1 AY 2021-22 2 AY 2020-21 3 AY 2019-20 4 AY 2018-19 5 AY 2017-18 6

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 153 of 179

AY 2019-20 5 AY 2018-19 6

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 154 of 179

read with Section 153A of the Act AY 2024-25 1 AY 2023-24 2 AY 2022-23 3 AY 2021-22 4 AY 2020-21 5 AY 2019-20 6 AY 2018-19 7 AY 2017-18 8 AY 2016-17 9 AY 2015-16 10

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 155 of 179

ten AYs’ as provided under Section 153C read with Section 153A. We note in this behalf that all of the writ petitions forming part of List II pertain to the aforenoted AYs’ 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013- 14. 98. We are therefore of the opinion that the Section 153C notices issued against the writ petitioners placed in List I and insofar as they pertain to AYs’ 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 would not sustain being beyond the “relevant assessment year” which could have possibly formed the basis for initiation of action under that provision. Similarly, the Section 153C notices impugned by the writ petitioners placed in List II and insofar as they pertain to AYs’ 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and which have been found to fall outside the net of “relevant assessment year”, being the ten year block, would be liable to be set aside on this score alone. H. THRESHOLDS AS PER THE FOURTH PROVISO OF SECTION 153A 99. The writ petitioners had also assailed the validity of the notices based on the provisions comprised in the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A. It must at the outset be noted that the amount of INR 50 lakhs which is spoken of in clause (a) of the Fourth Proviso merely constitutes a threshold. Regard must also be had to the fact that at the stage when the AO is issuing notice, it has yet not had the opportunity to undertake a detailed or in-depth examination of the evidence collected or come to a conclusive opinion with respect to the total income which may have escaped assessment. The computation and assessment of the income that is likely to have escaped assessment is at Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 156 of 179

this particular stage clearly tentative and nebulous. It would therefore and in our considered opinion be incorrect to strike down initiation of action merely because the notice may on an ex facie examination refer or allude to the value of an asset as being less than INR 50 lakhs. This more so when the petitioners call upon the Court to render a verdict based on a mere facial perusal of the Section 153C notice. We are also of the view that it would also perhaps be imprudent to accord a judicial imprimatur to the test as proposed by the petitioners and elevate it to attain the status of an inviolable rule especially when we bear in mind the limited scrutiny of the material that the AO may have had an occasion to undertake at that stage coupled with the fact that the returns of the assessee for the six or the ten AYs’ are yet to be received or examined. 100. For this purpose, it is pertinent to note that clause (a) of the Fourth Proviso also uses the phrase “..income represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more in the relevant assessment year or in aggregate in the relevant assessment years.” The Legislature appears to have consciously used the expression “likely to” bearing in mind the provisional character of the opinion that the AO would have formed at that stage, the fact that returns of the assessee are yet to be received and scrutinised and all of the above contributing to a mere preliminary formation of opinion. 101. However, and at the same time, even if the identified asset at this stage be less than INR 50 lakhs, the AO must on the basis of cogent reasons so recorded be of the opinion that the ultimate computation of escaped assessment is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs. The aforesaid Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 157 of 179

satisfaction would have to be based on a valid assessment of the material gathered and the potentiality of the same being indicative of the escaped assessment exceeding INR 50 lakhs. The notice under Section 153C would have to clearly reflect due application of mind by the AO in this respect and be prima facie sustainable. The formation of opinion in this respect would have to be based not on mere ipse dixit but reflective of being based on a fair assessment of the quantum of income likely to have escaped assessment as opposed to being speculative and conjectural. In case the AO intends to reopen assessment for the ten year block period, it would have to be shown that the formation of opinion in that respect is referenced to the material obtained in the search and in its possession and the same having the prospect or likelihood of escaped income being pegged at INR 50 lakhs or more. The Fourth Proviso, when interpreted along the lines suggested by us, and which commends acceptance, would strike a just and appropriate balance between the right of the respondents to initiate proceedings on the basis of material gathered in the course of the search and that of the assessee who could assail the reopening of ten assessment years if the prerequisites are not shown to have been met. 102. We are also of the firm opinion that the figure of INR 50 lakhs is not meant to be the qualifying criteria for each of the “relevant assessment year” independently. Clause (a) in unambiguous terms uses the expression “in aggregate in the relevant assessment years”. Consequently, even if the income likely to have escaped assessment on a cumulative computation be in excess of INR 50 lakhs, the same would qualify the statutory requirements as placed by the Fourth Proviso. Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 158 of 179

I. ISSUE OF FINALITY/CLOSURE FOR AYs’ 2010-11 AND 2011-12 AND THE APPLICABILTY OF THE 2017 AMENDING ACT 103. We then lastly proceed to deal with the challenge which stood raised to the impugned notices, with it being contended that for AYs’ 2010-11 and 2011-12, the period for assessment or reassessment when computed in accordance with the permissible period prescribed in Sections 143 and 153 of the Act as well as Sections 148 and 149 having come to an end prior to 01 April 2017, the respondents would stand legally deprived of the authority to invoke Section 153C for the said AYs’. In the alternative, it was also contended by the writ petitioners that for the aforenoted AYs’, namely, AYs’ 2010-11 and 2011-12, the period of assessment or reassessment under the unamended Section 153C having come to an end prior to 01 April 2017, the respondents would have no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 153C. The latter submission was based on the contention of the petitioners that the extended period of ten AYs’ having been introduced by virtue of the 2017 Amending Act would not be applicable to assessments which had attained closure prior to 01 April 2017. 104. The aforesaid submission proceeded in light of the amendments introduced in Sections 153A and 153C by virtue of the 2017 Amending Act and which added the concept of “relevant assessment year”. Undoubtedly, prior to 01 April 2017, the respondents could have reopened assessments only for six AYs’. It was by virtue of the 2017 Amending Act that the period which could be subjected to Section 153A or Section 153C assessments came to be enlarged to cover ten AYs’. It is also pertinent to note that the concept of a search assessment Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 159 of 179

now stretching up to ten AYs’ was contemporaneously introduced both in Section 153A as well as Section 153C. The submission of the writ petitioners of the amended Section 153C not being applicable proceeds on account of the four additional AYs’ which have now become liable to be reassessed. According to the writ petitioners, any assessment which may have attained finality prior to 01 April 2017 and which could not have formed subject matter of assessment or reassessment, either under Sections 153A or 153C or for that matter the other cognate provisions of the Act, would be immune and cannot be subjected to a fresh assessment in accordance with Sections 153A and 153C as they came to exist on the statute book after 01 April 2017. It was in the aforesaid backdrop that the decisions of the Supreme Court in S.S. Gadgil and K.M. Sharma as well as of this Court in C.B. Richards Ellis and Brahm Dutt had been cited for our consideration. 105. We, however, find ourselves unable to sustain this leg of the challenge for reasons which are recorded hereinafter. It becomes pertinent to note at the outset that the contention of a bar of limitation operating in respect of assessments or of those proceedings having attained finality proceeds in ignorance of Sections 153A and 153C commencing with a non obstante clause and thus being representative of the legislative intent of those two provisions overriding Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. The non obstante clause which accompanies both those provisions are a manifestation of the clear intent of the Legislature of those provisions and the powers comprised therein being available to be invoked and exercised notwithstanding the fetters and controls placed upon the powers of assessment or reassessment that may otherwise be available to be exercised by virtue Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 160 of 179

of Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. Sections 153A and 153C thus stand unshackled from the rigours of Sections 147, 148, 149, 151 or 153 of the Act. 106. The fact that Sections 153A and 153C would thus be freed from the restrictive timeframes which are erected by the aforenoted set of provisions would also appeal to logic bearing in mind the undisputed position that assessments or reassessments under Sections 153A and 153C are predicated upon a search. A search by its very nature would be an event unpredictable and unforeseen. It would therefore be wholly illogical to tie down assessments resting upon a search which may be undertaken to the periods of closure prescribed by Sections 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. It becomes pertinent to note that assessments which may be commenced pursuant to material that may be gathered in the course of a search would be wholly unrelated to the statutory timeframes which the Act erects for purposes of submission of returns and completion of assessments. A search assessment power is also clearly distinct and different from a reassessment that forms the subject matter of Sections 147 and 148. The reassessment power which stands comprised in Sections 147 and 148 is based upon the AO being satisfied that income susceptible to tax has escaped assessment. The reassessment power comprised in the aforenoted two provisions is based on information that may fall in the hands of the AO or where it come to form the opinion that income had escaped assessment. In terms of Section 148 as it stands presently, the AO is enabled to initiate reassessment only if it has information that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant AY. While under the earlier regime, and as Section 148 stood prior to its Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 161 of 179

amendment on 01 April 2021, the expression ‘information’ had not been specifically defined, the power to reassess rested upon the AO having reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The unamended Sections 147 and 148 placed an added fetter upon the AO in cases where reassessment was proposed to be undertaken after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant AY and the same being qualified by it being found that the assessee had failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the purposes of assessment. 107. The amended Section 148 expands the meaning to be assigned to the word “information”, as would be evident from Explanation 1 and also incorporates deeming provisions by virtue of Explanation 2 and in cases where the said provisions were to apply, the AO is deemed to have information which suggests that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. While admittedly Explanation 2 to Section 148, and more particularly clause (i) thereof, speaks of material gathered in the course of a search being deemed to be information which would be suggestive of income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment, the same in our considered opinion would have no bearing on our conclusion that the finality which is spoken of cannot be a ground which would warrant the amplitude of Sections 153A and 153C being abridged. As was noticed hereinbefore, a search would be an event which would be inherently unfathomable and clearly defy prediction. It would thus be wholly incorrect to conceive of a connection between statutory timeframes which are otherwise embodied in the Act to search assessments. Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 162 of 179

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 163 of 179

trinity provisions with effect from 01 April 2021. This, since Parliament by virtue of Finance Act, 2021 had merged the original reassessment power as well as those which may be predicated upon a search within the ambit of Section 148 and its family of provisions. 110. The contention with respect to retroactivity would also not sustain in light of the manifest intent of the search assessment power being statutorily intended to be invoked and available to be exercised in respect of all searches conducted between 31 May 2003 and 31 March 2021. This, coupled with the non obstante language embodied in Sections 153A and 153C, in our considered opinion, demolishes the argument of finality and AYs’ 2010-11 and 2011-12 being rendered invulnerable. Regard may also be had to the fact that the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A which came to be added contemporaneously with Explanation 1 and the inclusion of the concept of “relevant assessment year” in that provision restricted its application to searches conducted on or after 01 April 2017. This again is a clear indication of the legislative intent being to cover all searches conducted after the aforenoted date and no immunity intended to be attached to assessments attaining closure before the said date. There could not, in our considered opinion, be a clearer expression of the legislative will for those provisions having a retroactive application. 111. Although the petitioners sought to draw sustenance from the decision of this Court in C.B. Richards Ellis, we find that the reliance placed on the said decision as well as the others cited in its company is clearly misplaced. C.B. Richards Ellis in fact holds that the period within which reassessment may be initiated is a matter of procedure and that it is the time period prescribed and prevalent on the date of Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 164 of 179

issuance of notice which would be applicable. We deem it appropriate to notice the lucid explanation of the legal position which appears in the decision of the Supreme Court in S.C. Prashar, Income Tax Officer Vs. Vasantsen Dwarkadas24 “93. The amending Act of 1948 was passed on September 8, 1948, and came into force from March 30, 1948. In some cases it has been hold that its retrospectivity cannot be carried further than March 30, 1948. That is true in one sense but not in the sense how its provisions were to work in relation to the assessees. The section was meant to enable the issue of notices with a view to re- assessing income which had escaped assessment and allowed the re-assessment of income for back years. It was meant to operate retrospectively for eight years in some cases and four years in others. In our opinion it had retrospective operation in respect of back years according to its own provisions. If the 1948 Amendment could be treated as enabling the Income Tax Officer to take action at any point of time in respect of back assessment years within eight years of March 30, 1948 then such cases were within his power to tax. We have such a case here in CA No. 509 of 1958 where the notice was issued in 1949 to the lady whose husband had remitted Rs 9180 to her from Bangkok in the year relative to Assessment Year 1942-43. That lady was assessable in respect of this sum under Section 4(2) of the Income Tax Act. She did not file a return. If the case stood governed by the 1939 Amendment the period applicable would have been four years if she had not concealed the particulars of the income. She had of course not deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. If the case was governed by the 1948 Amendment she would come within the eight-year rule because she had failed to furnish a return. Now, we do not think that we can treat the different periods indicated under Section 34 as periods of limitation, the expiry of which grant prescriptive title to defaulting tax-payers. It may be said that an assessment once made is final and conclusive except for the provisions of Sections 34 and 35 but it is quite a different matter to say that a “vested right” arises in the assessee. On the expiry of the period the assessments, if any, may also become final and conclusive but only so long as the law is not altered retrospectively. Under the scheme of the Income Tax Act a liability to pay tax is incurred when according to the Finance Act in force the amount of income, profits or gains is above the exempted. That liability to the State is independent of any and where the aspect of finality attached to assessments was explained in the following terms:-

24 AIR 1963 SC 1356 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 165 of 179

consideration of time and, in the absence of any provision restricting action by a time limit, it can be enforced at any time. What the law does is to prevent harassment of assessees to the end of time by prescribing a limit of time for its own officers to take action. This limit of time is binding upon the officers, but the liability under the charging section can only be said to be unenforceable after the expiry of the period under the law as it stands. In other words, though the liability to pay tax remains it cannot be enforced by the officers administering the tax laws. If the disability is removed or according to a new law a new time limit is created retrospectively, there is no reason why the liability should not be treated as still enforceable. The law does not deal with concluded claims or their revival but with the enforcement of a liability to the State which though existing remained to be enforced. This aspect was admirably summed up by Chakravarti, C.J. (Sarkar, J. concurring) in Income tax Officer v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. as follows: “The plain effect of the substitution of the new Section 34 with effect from 30th March, 1948, is that from that date the Income Tax Act is to be read as including the new section as a part thereof and if it is to be so read, the further effect of the express language of the section is that so far as cases coming within clause (a) of sub-section (1) are concerned, all assessment years ending within eight years from 30th March, 1948, and from subsequent dates, are within its purview and it will apply to them, provided the notice contemplated is given within such eight years What is not within the purview of the section is an assessment year which ended before eight years from 30th March 1948.” xxxx

xxxx

xxxx 95. We come now to the next amendment in 1956. It created a change of a far-reaching character by removing the limit of time for action where the sum likely to be taxed amounted to rupees one lakh or more either for a single year or for a group of years going back to the year ending on March 31, 1941. These cases were governed by the eight-year rule under the 1948 amendment. In other words, the eight-year period was retained for cases involving less than one lakh of rupees and the limit of time was removed for those cases in which the amount involved was one lakh rupees or more. We are not concerned at this moment with the sanctions necessary before action could be taken. That is a separate matter. If no sanction was obtained then the notice would be bad for that reason but not on the ground of a limit of time. What we have said above about the amendment of 1948 applies mutatis mutandis also to the amendment of 1956. That provision was also to operate retrospectively as has been stated by us Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 166 of 179

earlier. There is good reason to think that this is the correct view because when the Calcutta High Court in the Debi Dutta Moody case held that the 1956 amendment was not applicable to the case, Parliament passed the 1959 Act nullifying that decision. By the same Act, Parliament gave power to issue a notice at any time in all these cases in which the eight-year period under the principal Act as it stood prior to the 1956 Amendment, had expired. The words “at any time” mean what they say. There is no special meaning to be attributed to them. “Any time” thus meant action to be taken without any limit of time. A similar result was reached in certain cases under the 1953 Amendment of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34. It provided : nothing in the section limiting the time within which any action may be taken shall apply to an assessment or re-assessment made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section already mentioned. This proviso was challenged under Article 14 of the Constitution but that is a different matter. If the section is constitutionally enacted then it also means what it says. It is hardly possible to imagine clearer language then the one used. It says that the limit of time mentioned in Section 34 is removed in certain cases that is to say, action can be taken at any time in these cases. In our judgment, each case of a notice must be judged according to the law existing on the date the notice was issued or served, as the law may require. So long as the notice where the notice is in question, and the assessment, where the assessment is in question, are within the time limited by the law, as it exists when the respective actions are taken, the actions cannot be questioned provided the law is clearly retrospective. The only case in which no further action can be taken is one in which action was not taken under the old law within the period prescribed by that law and which is not also within the period mentioned in the new law if its operation is retrospective. All other cases are covered by the law in force at the time action is taken. It is from these viewpoints that these appeals, in our opinion, should be judged.” 112. As is manifest from the aforesaid passages, the Supreme Court significantly observed that while the statute may not confer a power upon an officer to assess or reopen beyond a particular period of time and the assessment in that sense becoming final and conclusive, that would not justify it being presumed that a corresponding vested right comes to be created in favour of an assessee. It was held that the Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 167 of 179

assessment would remain conclusive as long as the law is not altered retrospectively or the disability removed. 113. Regard must also be had to the fact that C.B. Richards Ellis was a case which was dealing with a situation where the period within which a reassessment action could have been initiated came to be abridged. It was in the aforesaid context that our Court held that it would be the period applicable on the date of issuance of notice which would govern. The aforenoted decision assumes added significance in light of what was observed in para 12 of the report and where the Court laid emphasis on the distinction which must be recognised to exist between a liability to tax under the Act and the right to assess and which may culminate in the creation of a liability coupled with the power to enforce that liability. Although we have extracted the relevant paragraphs of that decision in the preceding parts of this judgment, for the sake of continuity, we deem it apposite to reproduce the following passage from that judgment hereunder:- “12. Law of limitation does not create any right in favour of a person or define or create any cause of action, but simply prescribes that the remedy can be exercised or availed of by or within the period stated and not thereafter. Subsequently, the right continues to exist but cannot be enforced. The liability to tax under the Act is created by the charging Section read with the computation provisions. The assessment proceedings crystallize the said liability so that it can be enforced and the tax if short paid or unpaid can be collected. If this difference between liability to tax and the procedure prescribed under the Act for computation of the liability (i.e. the procedure of assessment), is kept in mind, there would be no difficulty in understanding and appreciating the fallacy and the error in the primary argument raised by the Revenue. It is a settled position that liability to tax as a levy is normally determined as per statute as it exists on the first day of the assessment year, but this is not the issue or question in the present case. The issue or question in the present case relates to assessment i.e. initiation of re-assessment proceedings and whether the time/limitation for initiation of the re-assessment Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 168 of 179

proceedings specified by the Finance Act, 2001 is applicable. We are not determining/deciding the liability to tax but have to adjudicate and decide whether the re-assessment notice is beyond the time period stipulated. This is a matter/issue of procedure i.e. the time period in which the assessment or re-assessment proceedings can be initiated. Thus the time period/limitation period prescribed on the date of issue of notice will apply. In our opinion, the answer is clear and has to be in affirmative, i.e. in favour of the assessee.” 114. C.B. Richards Ellis thus constitutes a precedent which had clearly recognised that while the liability to tax may continue to exist, if the statutory period within which it could be enforced had come to lapse, the assessment would be conferred finality. The core question which arose for the consideration of the Court was with respect to a matter of procedure and the stipulations of time within which the power to reassess could have been exercised. Similar was the issue which arose in Brahm Datt. That too was a decision which was dealing with the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act. As held by us in the earlier parts of this decision, the reassessment provisions firstly incorporate strict time frames within which alone that power can be invoked. Neither Section 153A nor Section 153C embody a similar restraint. This obviously since those powers would be precipitated by a search, an event which is inherently beset by an element of unpredictability. Secondly, the Legislature has clearly and bearing mind the aforesaid aspect ordained that those two provisions would have overriding effect over the reassessment provisions. It would thus be clearly fallacious to introduce or read the restrictions placed in Sections 147 and 148 into the search assessment provisions with which we are concerned. Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 169 of 179

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 170 of 179

Section 149 of the Act. We also bear in mind the pertinent observations of the Supreme Court when it had observed that finality which may ordinarily come to imbue an order of assessment does not result in the creation of a corresponding vested right in the assessee. In any case and for reasons aforenoted, we are of the firm opinion that the judgements rendered in the context of Sections 145-151 would not constitute a prudent basis to interpret Sections 153A and 153C insofar as the argument of closure as canvassed by the writ petitioners is concerned. We consequently find ourselves unable to hold in favour of the writ petitioners insofar as this aspect is concerned. J. DECISION ON ITA 52/2024 117. Turning then to ITA 52/2024 filed by the Department we find that the impugned order dated 29 July 2022 is assailed on the ground that the ITAT has erred in holding that the computation of the preceding six AYs’ would be from the date of receipt of the books of accounts or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person instead of the actual date of search. Assailing this finding, the Department is in appeal before us and has proposed the following questions of law for our consideration: “2.1 Whether Ld. ITAT has erred in law by quashing the assessment on the ground that the date of search has to be reckoned from the date when books of accounts or other documents seized have been received by the Assessing Officer of the other person and not in accordance with the date of the search? 2.2 Whether Ld. ITAT has erred in law by ignoring that the implementation provisions have to be interpreted in accordance with the charging provision and there cannot be any anomalous situation created by the interpretation of the implementation provisions. The provisions under section 153A and 153C of the Act have to be construed in such a harmonious way that there will Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 171 of 179

not be any different sets of 6 years for reopening of the assessments in case of the person searched and the other person?” 118. Having examined the issue of commencement point for the purposes of computation of the six and the ten year block under Section 153C of the Act in detail in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, we find no perversity in the findings recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal25

while passing the impugned order dated 29 July 2022. We also additionally find that the ITAT committed no error in holding that the 2017 Amending Act would not apply to the facts of the present case since the search was conducted prior to the introduction of the 2017 amendments and consequently the extended ten year block would not apply in the facts of that case. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises in the instant appeal. We see no reason to interfere with the ITAT’s impugned order dated 29 July 2022. The appeal is thus liable to be dismissed. K. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 119. We thus record our conclusions as follows: A. Prior to the insertion of Sections 153A, 153B and 153C, an assessment in respect of search cases was regulated by Chapter XIVB of the Act, comprising of Sections 158B to 158BI and which embodied the concept of a block assessment. A block assessment in search cases undertaken in terms of the provisions placed in Chapter XIVB was ordained to be undertaken simultaneously and parallelly to a regular assessment. Contrary to the scheme underlying Chapter XIVB, Sections 153A, 153B

25 ITAT Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 172 of 179

and 153C contemplate a merger of regular assessments with those that may be triggered by a search. On a search being undertaken in terms of Section 153A, the jurisdictional AO is enabled to initiate an assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, in respect of the six AYs’ immediately preceding the AY relevant to the year of search as also in respect of the “relevant assessment year”, an expression which stands defined by Explanation 1 to Section 153A. Of equal significance is the introduction of the concept of abatement of all pending assessments as a consequence of which curtains come down on regular assessments. B. Both Sections 153A and 153C embody non-obstante clauses and are in express terms ordained to override Sections 139, 147 to 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. By virtue of the 2017 Amending Act, significant amendments came to be introduced in Section 153A. These included, inter alia, the search assessment block being enlarged to ten AYs’ consequent to the addition of the stipulation of “relevant assessment year” and which was defined to mean those years which would fall beyond the six year block period but not later than ten AYs’. The block period for search assessment thus came to be enlarged to stretch up to ten AYs’. The 2017 Amending Act also put in place certain prerequisite conditions which would have to inevitably be shown to be satisfied before the search assessment could stretch to the “relevant assessment year”. The preconditions include the prescription of income having escaped assessment and represented in the form of an asset amounting to or “likely to Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 173 of 179

amount to” INR 50 lakhs or more in the “relevant assessment year” or in aggregate in the “relevant assessment years”. C. Section 153C, on the other hand, pertains to the non-searched entity and in respect of whom any material, books of accounts or documents may have been seized and were found to belong to or pertain to a person other than the searched person. As in the case of Section 153A, Section 153C was also to apply to all searches that may have been undertaken between the period 01 June 2003 to 31 March 2021. In terms of that provision, the AO stands similarly empowered to undertake and initiate an assessment in respect of a non-searched entity for the six AYs’ as well as for “the relevant assessment year”. The AYs’, which would consequently be thrown open for assessment or reassessment under Section 153C follows lines pari materia with Section 153A. D. The First Proviso to Section 153C introduces a legal fiction 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 receipt of books of accounts by the jurisdictional AO. The identification of the starting block for the purposes of computation of the six and the ten year period is governed by the First Proviso to Section 153C, which significantly shifts the reference point spoken of in Section 153A(1), while defining the point from which the period of the “relevant assessment year” is to be calculated, to the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the non- searched person. The shift of the relevant date in the case of a Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 174 of 179

non-searched person being regulated by the First Proviso of Section 153C(1) is an issue which is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively settled by virtue of the decisions of this Court in SSP Aviation and RRJ Securities as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasjit Singh. The aforesaid legal position also stood reiterated by the Supreme Court in Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia. The submission of the respondents, therefore, that the block periods would have to be reckoned with reference to the date of search can neither be countenanced nor accepted. E. The reckoning of the six AYs’ would require one to firstly identify the FY in which the search was undertaken and which would lead to the ascertainment of the AY relevant to the previous year of search. The block of six AYs’ would consequently be those which immediately precede the AY relevant to the year of search. In the case of a search assessment undertaken in terms of Section 153C, the solitary distinction would be that the previous year of search would stand substituted by the date or the year in which the books of accounts or documents and assets seized are handed over to the jurisdictional AO as opposed to the year of search which constitutes the basis for an assessment under Section 153A. F. While the identification and computation of the six AYs’ hinges upon the phrase “immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year” of search, the ten year period would have to be reckoned from the 31st day of March of the AY relevant to the year of search. This, since undisputedly, Explanation 1 of Section 153A requires us to reckon it “from the Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 175 of 179

end of the assessment year”. This distinction would have to necessarily be acknowledged in light of the statute having consciously adopted the phraseology “immediately preceding” when it be in relation to the six year period and employing the expression “from the end of the assessment year” while speaking of the ten year block. 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 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 176 of 179

reasons to be duly recorded, be of the opinion that the ultimate computation of escaped income is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs. The aforesaid satisfaction would have to be based on an assessment of the material gathered and the potentiality of the same being indicative of the escaped assessment exceeding INR 50 lakhs. The formation of opinion in this respect would have to be based not on mere ipse dixit but reflective of a fair assessment of the quantum of income likely to have escaped assessment as distinct from mere speculation and conjecture. I. We further hold that since the precondition of INR 50 lakhs or 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. J. The contention of finality and closure addressed with respect to AYs’ 2010-11 and 2011-12 on the basis of the statutory timeframes prescribed for assessment or reassessment and as those provisions stood prior to 01 April 2017 is misconceived, since it proceeds on the assumption that once the period of assessment or reassessment were to come to an end, it would inevitably lead to the creation of a vested right in favour of the assessee. The aforesaid argument proceeds on the incorrect Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 177 of 179

premise of the reassessment provisions controlling or cabining the power conferred by Sections 153A and 153C. Acceptance of the aforesaid contention would amount to ignoring the plain and evident intent of the Legislature for Sections 153A and 153C operating above and beyond the reassessment powers. K. The submission of closure and finality also fails to bear in consideration the indubitable fact that a search is an eventuality which is inherently unpredictable, a circumstance which would defy prophecy and it consequently being wholly irrational to read the time frames pertaining to reassessment as regulating or controlling the period within which an assessment predicated on that event may be initiated. It would be wholly illogical to conceive of a connection between the statutory time frames which are otherwise embodied in the Act and search assessments. In fact the acceptance of this submission would amount to virtually erasing the non obstante clause contained in Sections 153A and 153C. L. The legislative intent of those provisions having retroactive application is clearly evidenced from the statue declaring that they would apply to all searches conducted between 31 May 2003 to 31 March 2021, and the Fourth Proviso in unambiguous terms extending the applicability of those provisions to all searches conducted post 01 April 2017 and Sections 153A and 153C superseding the provisions for reassessment, otherwise appearing in the Act. Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 178 of 179

M. The argument of closure also fails to take note of the accepted distinction between the liability to tax under the Act and the right to assess and enforce a liability created pursuant thereto. While a statute may denude an authority of the power to enforce a liability and in that limited sense conferring finality upon an assessment, the said position would prevail only till such time as that halo of impregnability is not statutorily removed. As was eloquently observed by the Supreme Court, the deprivation of a power to enforce would not lead to the creation of a vested right. As was pertinently observed, the liability to the State exists and operates de hors a consideration of time and in the absence of the statute itself imposing a time limit. The only limitations which are introduced while enacting Sections 153A and 153C was of the period within which the search had been conducted. L. DISPOSTIF 120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petitions placed in Lists I and II and pertaining to AYs’ 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, all of which fall beyond the maximum ten year block period shall stand allowed. The impugned notices pertaining to the aforenoted AYs’ shall consequently stand quashed. 121. From the petitions placed in List III, we allow WP(C) Nos. 400/2024, 384/2024 and 383/2024 since the impugned notices pertain to AYs’ 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 and thus beyond the maximum block of ten years. However, WP (C) 694/2024 pertains to AY 2016-17 which would fall within the eighth year of the “relevant assessment year”. The asset which is spoken of in the impugned notice is valued at Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 52/2024 & connected matters

Page 179 of 179

INR 25,20,000. While we allow the said writ petition and quash the impugned notice, we accord liberty to the AO to examine whether the income which has allegedly escaped assessment is likely to amount to INR 50 lakhs or more in light of the principles enunciated in this judgment. In case the AO comes to conclude that the initiation of action would meet the prerequisites placed by virtue of the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A as interpreted by us, it would be open to it to commence proceedings afresh if otherwise permissible in law. All other rights and contentions of the petitioner assessee are kept open. 122. ITA 52/2024 shall for reasons aforenoted stand dismissed. 123. All pending applications shall stand disposed of.

YASHWANT VARMA, J

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J APRIL 03, 2024/kk/RW/neha Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified