Loading High Court cases…
572 orders · Page 9 of 12
The High Court held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the impugned orders are quashed. The Court reasoned that when seized material relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made, Section 153C is the appropriate provision to be invoked. The Court found that the revenue authorities had not demonstrated the satisfaction of the twin conditions for proceeding under Section 153C, which would then necessitate proceeding under Section 153A. The Court distinguished the reliance placed by the revenue on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Pvt. Limited, stating that the specific issue of the interplay between Section 147/148 and Section 153C in cases of third-party seized material was not before the Supreme Court. Similarly, the decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. was interpreted to mean that Section 148 can be used when there is an absence of incriminating material, not when Section 153C is the more specific and applicable provision. The Court also noted that the Single Bench decision in Vijay Kumar Mehta was rendered infructuous and did not have the benefit of the Abhisar Buildwell decision. The Court found the Madras High Court's decision in Saloni Prakash Kumar to be unhelpful as the field of applicability of the two sections was not the issue. The Court accepted the first ground of challenge regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 and found no need to elaborate on other grounds. The revenue was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. The writ petitions were allowed.
The High Court held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the impugned orders are quashed. The Court reasoned that when seized material relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made, Section 153C is the appropriate provision to be invoked. The Court found that the revenue authorities had not demonstrated the satisfaction of the twin conditions for proceeding under Section 153C, which would then necessitate proceeding under Section 153A. The Court distinguished the reliance placed by the revenue on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Pvt. Limited, stating that the specific issue of the interplay between Section 147/148 and Section 153C in cases of third-party seized material was not before the Supreme Court. Similarly, the decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. was interpreted to mean that Section 148 can be used when there is an absence of incriminating material, not when Section 153C is the more specific and applicable provision. The Court also noted that the Single Bench decision in Vijay Kumar Mehta was rendered infructuous and did not have the benefit of the Abhisar Buildwell decision. The Court found the Madras High Court's decision in Saloni Prakash Kumar to be unhelpful as the field of applicability of the two sections was not the issue. The Court accepted the first ground of challenge regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 and found no need to elaborate on other grounds. The revenue was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. The writ petitions were allowed.
The High Court held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the impugned orders are quashed. The Court reasoned that when seized material relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made, Section 153C is the appropriate provision to be invoked. The Court found that the revenue authorities had not demonstrated the satisfaction of the twin conditions for proceeding under Section 153C, which would then necessitate proceeding under Section 153A. The Court distinguished the reliance placed by the revenue on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Pvt. Limited, stating that the specific issue of the interplay between Section 147/148 and Section 153C in cases of third-party seized material was not before the Supreme Court. Similarly, the decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. was interpreted to mean that Section 148 can be used when there is an absence of incriminating material, not when Section 153C is the more specific and applicable provision. The Court also noted that the Single Bench decision in Vijay Kumar Mehta was rendered infructuous and did not have the benefit of the Abhisar Buildwell decision. The Court found the Madras High Court's decision in Saloni Prakash Kumar to be unhelpful as the field of applicability of the two sections was not the issue. The Court accepted the first ground of challenge regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 and found no need to elaborate on other grounds. The revenue was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. The writ petitions were allowed.
The High Court held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the impugned orders are quashed. The Court reasoned that when seized material relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made, Section 153C is the appropriate provision to be invoked. The Court found that the revenue authorities had not demonstrated the satisfaction of the twin conditions for proceeding under Section 153C, which would then necessitate proceeding under Section 153A. The Court distinguished the reliance placed by the revenue on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Pvt. Limited, stating that the specific issue of the interplay between Section 147/148 and Section 153C in cases of third-party seized material was not before the Supreme Court. Similarly, the decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. was interpreted to mean that Section 148 can be used when there is an absence of incriminating material, not when Section 153C is the more specific and applicable provision. The Court also noted that the Single Bench decision in Vijay Kumar Mehta was rendered infructuous and did not have the benefit of the Abhisar Buildwell decision. The Court found the Madras High Court's decision in Saloni Prakash Kumar to be unhelpful as the field of applicability of the two sections was not the issue. The Court accepted the first ground of challenge regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 and found no need to elaborate on other grounds. The revenue was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. The writ petitions were allowed.
The High Court held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the impugned orders are quashed. The Court reasoned that when seized material relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made, Section 153C is the appropriate provision to be invoked. The Court found that the revenue authorities had not demonstrated the satisfaction of the twin conditions for proceeding under Section 153C, which would then necessitate proceeding under Section 153A. The Court distinguished the reliance placed by the revenue on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Pvt. Limited, stating that the specific issue of the interplay between Section 147/148 and Section 153C in cases of third-party seized material was not before the Supreme Court. Similarly, the decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. was interpreted to mean that Section 148 can be used when there is an absence of incriminating material, not when Section 153C is the more specific and applicable provision. The Court also noted that the Single Bench decision in Vijay Kumar Mehta was rendered infructuous and did not have the benefit of the Abhisar Buildwell decision. The Court found the Madras High Court's decision in Saloni Prakash Kumar to be unhelpful as the field of applicability of the two sections was not the issue. The Court accepted the first ground of challenge regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 and found no need to elaborate on other grounds. The revenue was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. The writ petitions were allowed.
The High Court held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the impugned orders are quashed. The Court reasoned that when seized material relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made, Section 153C is the appropriate provision to be invoked. The Court found that the revenue authorities had not demonstrated the satisfaction of the twin conditions for proceeding under Section 153C, which would then necessitate proceeding under Section 153A. The Court distinguished the reliance placed by the revenue on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Pvt. Limited, stating that the specific issue of the interplay between Section 147/148 and Section 153C in cases of third-party seized material was not before the Supreme Court. Similarly, the decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. was interpreted to mean that Section 148 can be used when there is an absence of incriminating material, not when Section 153C is the more specific and applicable provision. The Court also noted that the Single Bench decision in Vijay Kumar Mehta was rendered infructuous and did not have the benefit of the Abhisar Buildwell decision. The Court found the Madras High Court's decision in Saloni Prakash Kumar to be unhelpful as the field of applicability of the two sections was not the issue. The Court accepted the first ground of challenge regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 and found no need to elaborate on other grounds. The revenue was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. The writ petitions were allowed.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders were liable to be quashed. The Court reasoned that when incriminating material found during a search or requisition relates to a person other than the one on whom the search was conducted, the AO must proceed under Section 153C. The Court found that the jurisdictional conditions for invoking Section 147/148 were not satisfied in these cases, especially when the specific provisions of Section 153C were applicable. The Court distinguished the cited Supreme Court judgment in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., noting it dealt with Section 153A and the absence of incriminating material, whereas the present cases involved material found on third parties. The Court also found the reliance on M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Pvt. Limited and Saloni Prakash Kumar to be misplaced as those cases did not directly address the interplay between Section 148 and Section 153C in the context of third-party searches. The Court accepted the primary ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law, implying they could initiate proceedings under the appropriate section if permissible. The writ petitions were allowed.
The Tribunal quashed the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders. The primary reasoning was that when incriminating material seized or requisitioned during a search pertains to a person other than the one on whom the search was conducted, and such material relates to or belongs to that other person, the proceedings should be initiated under Section 153C. The Tribunal found that the specific provisions of Section 153C would prevail over the general provisions of Section 147/148 in such circumstances. The reliance by the revenue on certain Supreme Court and High Court decisions was found to be misplaced as those cases did not directly address the interplay between Section 147/148 and Section 153C in the context of third-party seized material. The Tribunal noted that the assessees had satisfied the conditions for invoking Section 153C and that the revenue had not demonstrated the satisfaction of conditions for Section 148. The judgment explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and other grounds were not elaborated upon. The revenue was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law, implying they could initiate proceedings under the appropriate section if legally permissible. The writ petitions were allowed.
The High Court quashed the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders. The Court held that if incriminating material seized or requisitioned belongs to or is relatable to a person other than the one on whom the search was conducted, the AO must proceed under Section 153C. The Court found the argument that Section 148 is to be resorted to if there is no incriminating material for all preceding years under Section 153C to be misplaced. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., stating it did not support the contention that Section 148 is rendered redundant if Section 153C is to be resorted to. The Court also noted that the decision in Vijay Kumar Mehta was rendered without the benefit of the Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. judgment. The specific provisions of Section 153C were held to prevail over the general provisions of Section 147/148 in cases of search on a third party. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. Other grounds raised by the petitioners were not elaborated upon as the first ground was accepted.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders. The Court held that the jurisdictional conditions for invoking Section 147/148 were not satisfied in light of the specific provisions of Section 153C. The reasoning was that if the conditions for Section 153C are met (i.e., incriminating material found during a search belongs to or is relatable to a person other than the one searched), then Section 153C must be resorted to, and Section 148 cannot be invoked. The Court distinguished the reliance placed by the revenue on various judgments, stating that the issue of the interplay between Section 147/148 and Section 153C in the context of third-party seized material was not directly addressed in those cases. The Court found merit in the petitioners' reliance on Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which supported the principle that Section 153C prevails over Section 147/148 in such circumstances. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and other grounds were not elaborated upon. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders were quashed. The Court found that the jurisdictional conditions for invoking Section 147/148 were not satisfied in cases where incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during a search on a third party. The Court reasoned that in such scenarios, the specific provisions of Section 153C would prevail over the general provisions of Section 147/148. The Court noted that the reliance by the revenue on certain case laws was misplaced as those cases did not directly address the interplay between Section 147/148 and Section 153C in the context of seized material belonging to a person other than the one searched. The Court allowed the writ petitions on the first ground of challenge, finding no need to elaborate on other grounds. However, it granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. The interim protection granted to the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petitions was also noted.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the impugned orders. The Court reasoned that when incriminating material belonging to or relatable to a person other than the one on whom the search was conducted is found, Section 153C is the appropriate provision to be invoked. The Court found the reliance of the revenue on M.R. Shah Logistics Pvt. Limited to be misplaced as the issue of interplay between Section 147/148 and Section 153C in the context of third-party seized material was not before the Supreme Court in that case. The Court also distinguished the Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. decision, noting it dealt with the absence of incriminating material and the possibility of proceeding under Section 148 in such situations, which is different from the present case. The Court found support in the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Sri Dinakara Suvarna and the Bombay High Court in M/s. Aditi Constructions, which held that specific provisions like Section 153C would prevail over general provisions like Section 147/148 when the conditions for Section 153C are met. The Court concluded that the jurisdictional conditions for invoking Section 147/148 were not satisfied, and the AO should have proceeded under Section 153C. The revenue is at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. Other grounds raised by the petitioners were not adjudicated upon as the first ground was accepted.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders. The Court held that the jurisdictional conditions for invoking Section 147/148 were not satisfied when the specific provisions of Section 153C were applicable. The reasoning was that Section 153C is a specific provision that prevails over the general provisions of Section 147/148 in cases where incriminating material seized during a search on a third party relates to the assessee. The Court found that the revenue's reliance on certain case laws was misplaced as those decisions did not directly address the interplay between Section 148 and Section 153C in the context of third-party searches. The Court explicitly stated that the argument that Section 148 is rendered redundant if Section 153C is to be resorted to was not supported by the facts of the present case. The Court noted that the assessees had relied on decisions that supported their contention that Section 153C should be invoked. The operative direction was to quash the notices and orders, with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. The first ground of challenge, concerning the initiation of proceedings under Section 148, was accepted, and other grounds were not elaborated upon.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders were liable to be quashed. The Court reasoned that when incriminating material found during a search on a third party relates to the assessee, the specific provisions of Section 153C should be invoked. The Court found that the jurisdictional conditions for invoking Section 147/148 were not satisfied in these cases, particularly as there was no failure to disclose material facts by the assessees themselves. The Court distinguished the reliance placed by the revenue on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Pvt. Limited, stating that the interplay of Section 147/148 vis-à-vis Section 153C in the context of seized material relating to a third party was not the issue before the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. did not support the revenue's contention that Section 148 is rendered redundant if Section 153C is to be resorted to. The Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the notices and orders, but granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. The first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and other grounds were not elaborated upon.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders. The Court held that the jurisdictional conditions for invoking Section 147/148 were not satisfied in the context of the present cases. The Court found that the assessees had provided all necessary particulars and supporting documents, dispelling any presumption of failure to disclose material facts. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the specific provisions of Section 153C would prevail over the general provisions of Section 147/148 when incriminating material found during a search on a third party relates to the assessee. The Court noted that the reliance placed by the revenue on certain Supreme Court and High Court decisions was misplaced as those cases did not directly address the interplay between Section 148 and Section 153C in the specific factual matrix of material found on a third party. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge, concerning the initiation of proceedings under Section 148, was accepted, and other grounds were not elaborated upon. The revenue was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose by the existence of seized material that relates to or belongs to a person other than the one on whom the search is conducted or requisition is made. Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. The Tribunal clarified that under Sections 153A and 153C, the 'total income' is assessed, which includes returned income, unearthed undisclosed income, and information from other sources. However, the Court found that in the specific facts before it, the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The reasoning was based on the reliance placed on the decisions of Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which suggested that Section 153C would prevail over Section 147/148 in cases where the jurisdictional conditions for Section 147/148 were not satisfied or where Section 153C was the more appropriate provision. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to consider other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose or invalid solely because seized material relates to a person other than the assessee searched. The Court clarified that Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. However, the Court found that in cases where incriminating material is seized or requisitioned and it belongs to or is relatable to a person other than the one on whom the search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to. The Court distinguished the cited judgments, finding that the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. did not support the contention that Section 148 is rendered redundant if Section 153C is to be resorted to. The Court relied on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Sri Dinakara Suvarna and the Bombay High Court in M/s. Aditi Constructions, which held that specific provisions like Section 153C would prevail over general provisions like Section 147/148 in such circumstances. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders were quashed, with liberty granted to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. The Court accepted the first ground of challenge regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section 148.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose or invalid solely because seized material relates to a person other than the assessee searched. The Court clarified that Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. However, the Court found that in cases where incriminating material is seized or requisitioned and it belongs to or is relatable to a person other than the one on whom the search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to. The Court distinguished the cited judgments, finding that the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. did not support the contention that Section 148 is rendered redundant if Section 153C is to be resorted to. The Court relied on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Sri Dinakara Suvarna and the Bombay High Court in M/s. Aditi Constructions, which held that specific provisions like Section 153C would prevail over general provisions like Section 147/148 in such circumstances. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders were quashed, with liberty granted to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. The Court accepted the first ground of challenge regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section 148.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders. The Court held that the jurisdictional conditions for invoking Section 147/148 were not satisfied in cases where the specific provisions of Section 153C would prevail over the general provisions of Section 147, particularly when incriminating material seized or requisitioned belonged to or was relatable to a person other than the one on whom the search was conducted. The Court found that the assessees had provided all particulars and supporting documents, dispelling any presumption of failure to disclose material facts. The Court noted that the reliance by the revenue on certain case laws was misplaced as those cases did not deal with the specific interplay of Section 147/148 and Section 153C in the context of seized material belonging to a third party. The Court explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to dilate upon other grounds. The revenue was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. The interim protection granted to the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petitions was noted.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders. The Court held that when incriminating material is found during a search or requisition on a third party and this material pertains to or belongs to the assessee, the Assessing Officer (AO) must proceed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found the revenue's reliance on M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Pvt. Limited to be misplaced as the issue of interplay between Section 147/148 and Section 153C in the context of seized material belonging to a third party was not the subject matter before the Supreme Court. The Court also distinguished the Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. decision, noting it dealt with the absence of incriminating material during a search on the assessee themselves. The Court found merit in the petitioners' reliance on Sri Dinakara Suvarna and M/s. Aditi Constructions, which supported the view that Section 153C should prevail over Section 147/148 in such scenarios. The Court concluded that the jurisdictional conditions for invoking Section 148 were not satisfied, as the specific provision of Section 153C was applicable. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court quashed the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders. The Court held that when incriminating material is seized or requisitioned belonging to or relatable to a person other than the one on whom the search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to. The argument that Section 148 is to be resorted to if Section 153C cannot be invoked for all relevant preceding years was deemed misplaced. The Court found that the jurisdictional conditions for invoking Section 147-148 were not satisfied, especially when the specific provisions of Section 153C would prevail over the general provisions of Section 147 in cases of search on a third party. The Court distinguished the relied-upon cases of the revenue, finding them not applicable to the present facts. The Court allowed the writ petitions on the first ground of challenge, finding no need to elaborate on other grounds. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. The interim protection granted to the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petitions was noted.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders. The Court held that the argument that Section 148 is to be resorted to if there is no incriminating material for all relevant preceding years under Section 153C is misplaced. The Court clarified that if the twin conditions for Section 153C are satisfied, the Assessing Officer must proceed under Section 153A. It is not obligatory to assess all years, but once incriminating material seized or requisitioned belongs to or is relatable to a person other than the one searched, Section 153C is to be resorted to. The Court found that the jurisdictional conditions for invoking Section 147-148 were not satisfied as there was no failure to disclose material facts fully and truly, and the specific provisions of Section 153C would prevail over the general provisions of Section 147 in cases of search on a third party. The Court distinguished the reliance placed by the revenue on M.R. Shah Logistics Pvt. Limited, stating that the issue of interplay between Section 147/148 and Section 153C was not before the Supreme Court. The decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. was interpreted to mean that in the absence of incriminating material, reassessment can be done under Section 148, but it does not render Section 148 redundant if Section 153C is applicable. The Court found the reliance on Saloni Prakash Kumar to be unhelpful as the issue was not the field of applicability of the two sections. The Court accepted the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148, rendering other grounds unnecessary. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose or invalid solely because seized material relates to a person other than the assessee searched. The Court clarified that Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. However, the Court found that in cases where incriminating material is seized or requisitioned and it belongs to or is relatable to a person other than the one on whom the search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to. The Court distinguished the cited judgments, finding that the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. did not support the contention that Section 148 is rendered redundant if Section 153C is to be resorted to. The Court relied on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Sri Dinakara Suvarna and the Bombay High Court in M/s. Aditi Constructions, which held that specific provisions like Section 153C would prevail over general provisions like Section 147/148 in such circumstances. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders were quashed, with liberty granted to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. The Court accepted the first ground of challenge regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section 148.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose or invalid solely because seized material relates to a person other than the assessee searched. The Court clarified that Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. However, the Court found that in cases where incriminating material is seized or requisitioned and it belongs to or is relatable to a person other than the one on whom the search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to. The Court distinguished the cited judgments, finding that the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. did not support the contention that Section 148 is rendered redundant if Section 153C is to be resorted to. The Court relied on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Sri Dinakara Suvarna and the Bombay High Court in M/s. Aditi Constructions, which held that specific provisions like Section 153C would prevail over general provisions like Section 147/148 in such circumstances. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders were quashed, with liberty granted to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. The Court accepted the first ground of challenge regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section 148.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose or invalid solely because seized material relates to a person other than the assessee searched. The Court clarified that Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. However, the Court found that in cases where incriminating material is seized or requisitioned and it belongs to or is relatable to a person other than the one on whom the search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to. The Court distinguished the cited judgments, finding that the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. did not support the contention that Section 148 is rendered redundant if Section 153C is to be resorted to. The Court relied on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Sri Dinakara Suvarna and the Bombay High Court in M/s. Aditi Constructions, which held that specific provisions like Section 153C would prevail over general provisions like Section 147/148 in such circumstances. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders were quashed, with liberty granted to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. The Court accepted the first ground of challenge regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section 148.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not rendered otiose or invalid solely because seized material relates to a person other than the assessee searched. The Court clarified that Section 148 continues to apply to regular proceedings and cases where no incriminating material is seized. However, the Court found that in cases where incriminating material is seized or requisitioned and it belongs to or is relatable to a person other than the one on whom the search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to. The Court distinguished the cited judgments, finding that the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. did not support the contention that Section 148 is rendered redundant if Section 153C is to be resorted to. The Court relied on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Sri Dinakara Suvarna and the Bombay High Court in M/s. Aditi Constructions, which held that specific provisions like Section 153C would prevail over general provisions like Section 147/148 in such circumstances. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders were quashed, with liberty granted to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. The Court accepted the first ground of challenge regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section 148.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders. The Court held that if incriminating material relating to an assessee is found during a search conducted on a third party, the Assessing Officer must proceed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that Section 153C is a specific provision designed for such situations, and its invocation takes precedence over the general reassessment provisions under Section 148. The Court found the revenue's reliance on certain case laws to be misplaced as those cases did not directly address the interplay between Section 148 and Section 153C in the context of third-party searches. The Court noted that the decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. supported the idea that Section 148 can be used for unabated assessments based on other sources if no incriminating material is found during a search on the assessee, but this did not negate the applicability of Section 153C when material belonging to a third party is seized. The ratio decidendi is that Section 153C is the exclusive recourse when seized material pertains to a person other than the one searched. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.