9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars, which are tabulated as under:- Sr.No. WP (L) Numbers Assessment Years 1 4894 of 2025 2013-14 2 4895 of 2025 2014-15 3 4903 of 2025 2018-19 4 4909 of 2025 2015-16 5 4912 of 2025 2020-21 6 4916 of 2025 2019-20 7 4917 of 2025 2011-12 8 4933 of 2025 2017-18 9 4953 of 2025 2010-11 10 5015 of 2025 2016-17 11 5041 of 2025 2012-13 4. The petitions challenges the notices issued under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act ('the Act') dated 28 February 2024 and the orders rejecting the objection to the issue of this notice. By consent of the parties, since a common issue is involved, Writ Petition (L) No. 4894 of 2025 for the assessment year 2013-14 is taken as a lead matter. 5. The facts relevant to Writ Petition (L) No. 4894 of 2025 for Assessment Year 2013-14 are as under:- (i) On 19 October 2019, a search action under Section 132 of the Act was initiated in the case of Alok Kumar Agarwal, Ankit Agarwal, M/s. Alankit Limited and M/s. Alankit Assignments Limited, Delhi. In the said search action, various documents and books of accounts were seized from the search parties. (ii) On 31 May 2022, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Delhi wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erson may have been received in and around January 2024 and, therefore, the notice under Section 153C can be issued for six assessment years but not later than 10 assessment years if the income escaping assessment is likely to exceed Rs.50 lakh. The assessee also raised a plea concerning the computation of the block period, whether it should be from the date of receipt of books of the accounts by the jurisdictional AO of the non-search person or the actual date of search in the case of the person against whom the search action has been initiated and accordingly the period of the "relevant assessment years" is to be calculated. The petitioner, therefore, submitted that 6 years in its case would start from assessment year 2017-18 onwards since the AO received the records in and around January 2024. The objection further states that since the pre-requisite satisfaction of income having escaped assessment of more than Rs.50 lakh is not satisfied, the extended period of 10 years cannot be invoked. In any case, even if the extended period is invoked, the notice issued for assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 is without any authority of law. (vi) On 21 November 2024, the respondents int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. The respondents also rejected the petitioner's contention that the notice is time-barred. The respondents also stated that the interpretation of the phrase "relevant assessment year" by the petitioner is not correct, and the condition for issuing notices under Section 153C of the Act has been correctly met. Along with the said order, the petitioner was provided with various materials, including the satisfaction note. 6. Against the above backdrop, the petitioner is challenging the issue of notice under Section 153C of the Act dated 28 February 2024 and the order rejecting the objection dated 28 December 2024. 7. Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the proceedings are time-barred under clause (ii) to the third proviso to Section 153B (1) of the Act. He further submitted that since a satisfaction note by the AO of the search party has been prepared after a gap of 10 months, the same is bad in law. Thirdly, he submitted that the satisfaction note prepared by the petitioner's AO is after a gap of more than 4 years from the date of search and more than 21 months from the date of the satisfaction note of the AO of the search party and, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions can be agitated before the Appellate Authority in an appeal filed against an order passed under Section 153C of the Act. The said order under Section 153C of the Act is appealable. The present notice and the orders challenged in interlocutory proceedings cannot be challenged in the Writ Petition and more so for the reasons we propose to set out hereinafter. 11. The petitioner has stated that the proceedings are bad in law since no incriminating material was found for certain years. The present proceedings are initiated under the documents and information received from the assessing officer at New Delhi who had initiated the search proceedings against Alankit Group. Whether for any assessment year or for all assessment years for which the notices are issued, there is incriminating material that would require investigation and inquiry into the documents received from the assessing officer at New Delhi by the assessing officer of the petitioner. 12. In its writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot go through the material received from the New Delhi assessing officer to ascertain any incriminating material for each of the assessment years for which the notice is issued. In our view, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents have rejected the objections and in the said order it is expressly stated in paragraph 8 that the petitioner was given time of 15 days from the date of disposal of the objections to decide its further course of action in the matter and thereafter no objections would be entertained. We do not find any infirmity in this finding of the assessing officer in the order rejecting the objection. The assessing officer has given the opportunity to the petitioner to decide its course of action, and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition. Insofar as non-entertainment of further objections is concerned, we do not find any infirmity since at some stage the filing of objections to the proceeding has to stop. Otherwise, there will be no end to the petitioner's time and again filing objections and the officer passing order every time. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner on this issue for this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction must also be rejected. 16. The petitioner has further submitted that the satisfaction note is not for all the assessment years, and in the absence of any co-relation of the document with the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risation. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to examine the issue of limitation raised in the present proceedings. Also, we may observe that there are conflicting decisions on this issue based on facts of each case. Therefore, it is appropriate that the authorities adjudicate this issue under the Act. However, that would not preclude the petitioner from raising a plea of limitation in the appeal proceedings if the petitioner is not satisfied with the assessment order. 19. In our view, it would be premature to presume that the assessment order passed under Section 153C would be against the petitioner. If during the assessment proceedings, and based on the submissions made by the petitioner, if the assessing officer is convinced on the merits of the case, then no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. However, if the assessment proceedings are intricated at this stage, it would undoubtedly preclude the assessing officer from investigating. This is the case of search and seizure where huge unaccounted income in accommodation entry has been detected. In our view, this Court cannot exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in such type of cases by which the offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
