2025 (5) TMI 838 - SCH - Income Tax

Proceedings u/s 153C - issuance of the notice was preceded by the drawl of a Satisfaction Note by the jurisdictional AO - importance of material recovered in the course of a search or a requisition made and a right to reassess u/s 153A and 153C - As decided by HC 2024 (4) TMI 461 - DELHI HIGH COURT except for a few exceptions which were noticed in the introductory parts of this judgment the writ petitions forming part of this batch impugn the invocation of Section 153C in respect of AYs for which no incriminating material had been gathered or obtained. Satisfaction Notes also fail to record any reasons as to how the material discovered and pertaining to a particular AY is likely to have a bearing on the determination of the total income for the year which is sought to be abated or reopened in terms of the impugned notices. Respondents have erroneously proceeded on the assumption that the moment any material is recovered in the course of a search or on the basis of a requisition made they become empowered in law to assess or reassess all the six AYs years immediately preceding the assessment correlatable to the search year or the relevant assessment year as defined in terms of Explanation 1 of Section 153A. The said approach is clearly unsustainable and contrary to the consistent line struck by the precedents noticed above. HELD THAT - There is a gross delay of 274 days and 246 days in filing of these Special Leave Petitions which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioners. Even otherwise we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order(s) passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

Summary

The Supreme Court, through Hon'ble Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, dismissed the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) due to an unexplained gross delay of 274 and 246 days in filing. The Court held that "there is a gross delay... which has not been satisfactorily explained," and additionally found no merit warranting interference with the High Court's impugned orders. Consequently, the SLPs were dismissed both "on the ground of delay as well as on merits," and all pending applications were disposed of.