2023:BHC-OS:9407-DB

1/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2595 OF 2021
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2593 OF 2021
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2847 OF 2021
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2588 OF 2021
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2598 OF 2021
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2597 OF 2021
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2696 OF 2021
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2625 OF 2021
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2594 OF 2021

Ashok Commercial Enterprises )

126, Free Press House, 215, Nariman Point, )
Mumbai 400 021 ) ….Petitioner
V/s.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxation )
Central Circle – 2(4) )
th
Room No.802, 8 Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, ) ….Respondent
Old CGO Annexe, M. K. Road, Mumbai 400020 )
----
Mr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Advocate a/w Ms Rutuja N. Pawar, Ms Hetal
Laghave and Ms Sneha More for Petitioner in all petitions.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents in all petitions.
----
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM AND
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 21st JULY 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 4th SEPTEMBER 2023

JUDGMENT : (PER K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) :

1 Petitioner had filed nine Writ Petitions challenging notices

Gauri Gaekwad
 2/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

dated 19th July 2021 and 14th July 2021 issued under Section 153 of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for Assessment Year 2011-2012 (WP

No.2501 of 2021), Assessment Year 2012-2013 (WP No.2432 of 2021),

Assessment Year 2013-2014 (WP No.2411 of 2021), Assessment Year 2014-

2015 (WP No.2403 of 2021), Assessment Year 2015-2016 (WP No.2415 of

2021), Assessment Year 2016-2017 (WP No.2423 of 2021), Assessment Year

2017-2018 (WP No.2424 of 2021), Assessment Year 2018-2019 (WP

No.2399 of 2021) and Assessment Year 2019-2020 (WP No.2395 of 2021).

Subsequent to filing of these petitions, assessment orders were

passed pursuant to the above mentioned notices for the Assessment Years

2011-2012 to 2019-2020. The said assessment orders were also challenged

by filing nine separate Writ Petitions mentioned in the cause title for

Assessment Years 2011-2012 to 2019-2020 and the grounds of challenge

included those raised in the earlier nine petitions. For the reasons set out in

the order of this Court passed on 21 st July 2023 in above mentioned Writ

Petitions, those petitions were disposed as withdrawn.

2 Various independent grounds of challenge have been raised in

the Writ Petitions. The petition number and Assessment Year are as under :

WP No.2593 of 2021 - A.Y. 2011-2012

WP No.2598 of 2021 - A.Y. 2012-2013

WP No.2847 of 2021 - A.Y. 2013-2014

WP No.2597 of 2021 - A.Y. 2014-2015

Gauri Gaekwad
 3/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

WP No.2594 of 2021 - A.Y. 2015-2016

WP No.2588 of 2021 - A.Y. 2016-2017

WP No.2595 of 2021 - A.Y. 2017-2018

WP No.2625 of 2021 - A.Y. 2018-2019

WP No.2696 of 2021 - A.Y. 2019-2020

The lead petition is Writ Petition No.2595 of 2021 for

Assessment Year 2017-2018 and the facts of that case as well as the grounds

of challenge arising therein are set out hereinafter. Petitioner prays :

(a) That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of

certiorari or mandamus or a writ in the nature of certiorari or
mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction after
calling for the records and proceedings of respondent and quash
and set aside the impugned assessment order under Section
153C read with Section 144 of the Act.

By consent, all these petitions are taken up for hearing at the

admission stage itself. Therefore, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3 Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of

financing, i.e., giving loans to parties on interest against cheques and bills

of exchange. Petitioner is also engaged, inter alia, in the business of trading

in shares, property and broking.

4 On 30th October 2017, petitioner had filed its return of income

for Assessment Year 2017-2018 showing a loss of Rs.270,23,38,423/-.

Petitioner’s trading and profit and loss account, forming part of the return

of income showed that loan account balances of Rs.360,59,25,520/- had

Gauri Gaekwad
 4/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

been written off during the year and a deduction from petitioner’s taxable

income was claimed in respect of the same. The amount written off

comprised of loans given to Hubtown Limited (Rs.357,22,54,398/-) and to

one Vadilal Gada (Rs.3,65,00,000/-), less others (net) Rs.28,28,878/-.

5 During the course of assessment proceedings for Assessment

Year 2017-2018, the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 14 th June 2019

under Section 142(1) of the Act requiring petitioner to furnish details

regarding the write-off of bad debts. By a letter dated 18 th June 2019

petitioner replied to the aforesaid notice providing details of the amounts of

loan to Hubtown Limited that had been written off during the year

alongwith reasons in support of the claim for deduction thereto when

computing its income chargeable to tax. The Assessing Officer passed an

assessment order dated 29th June 2019 under Section 143(3) of the Act for

Assessment Year 2017-2018, wherein, after specific reference to notice

dated 14th June 2019 that was issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, he

accepted the claim of petitioner for the write off of loans and advances and

assessed petitioner at loss of Rs.270,23,38,422/-.

6 On or about 30th July 2019 Hubtown Limited was subjected to

proceedings under Section 132 of the Act. During the course of proceedings

above-mentioned under Section 132 of the Act, the Income Tax Department

had come across a ledger account of petitioner in the books of Hubtown

Gauri Gaekwad
 5/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

Limited. It appears, during the course of proceedings under Section 132 of

the Act in the case of Hubtown Limited, certain statements were recorded

of employees/officers of Hubtown Limited. Immediately, on the very next

day after the search proceedings on Hubtown Limited, i.e., 31 st July 2019,

Officers of the Income Tax Department conducted a survey under Section

133A of the Act in the premises of petitioner to verify that the entries

shown in the ledger account of petitioner in the books of Hubtown Limited,

agreed with entries in the ledger account of Hubtown Limited made in the

books of account of petitioner. It is not in dispute that the entries in both

sets of books were in agreement. Although not relevant for the purpose of

this petition, during the course of various proceedings taken in the case of

Hubtown Limited it has been clarified that Hubtown Limited’s claim that

some part of the loan received from petitioner had been recast/adjusted as

an advance against property to be sold to petitioner was only an offer made

by Hubtown Limited, which was the subject matter of ongoing negotiation

with petitioner and no such recast/adjustment had been made. Petitioner’s

assessment for Assessment Year 2017-2018 was sought to be reopened by

issue of a notice dated 8th April 2021 under Section 148 of the Act, which

action was challenged by petitioner in Writ Petition No.1730 of 2022.

7 On 13th July 2021, respondent no.1 being the common

Assessing Officer of petitioner and Hubtown Limited prepared a satisfaction

note (common note for all Assessment Years 2011-2012 to 2019-2020)

Gauri Gaekwad
 6/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

dated 13th July 2021. The satisfaction note records :

(a) that the ledger account of petitioner in the books of

Hubtown Limited which showed monies received, repayment made, interest

entries thereon had a bearing on the income of petitioner. Further, the

ledger account revealed income in the form of an asset stated to be a

deposit in the account had bearing on income of petitioner “… beyond six

years…..”;

(b) Proceedings under Section 132 of the Act in the case of

Hubtown Limited had unearthed information that petitioner has engaged in

share transactions with the promoter entity of Hubtown Group being

transactions in shares of Hubtown Limited;

(c) the accounts of Hubtown Limited for the year ended

31st March 2019 (a year with which this is not concerned) and a statement

recorded of an employee of Hubtown Limited claimed that part of the loan

to Hubtown Limited from petitioner had been recast/adjusted as an

advance against property to be sold to petitioner by Hubtown Limited and

accordingly, proceedings under Section 153C of the Act were sought to be

initiated in the case of petitioner.

8 On 14th July 2021, respondent issued a notice to petitioner

under Section 153C(1) of the Act. On 15 th August 2021, petitioner filed a

return of income pursuant to the notice under Section 153C(1) of the Act.

On 31st August 2021, in response to notices dated 26 th August 2021 and

Gauri Gaekwad
 7/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

27th August 2021 issued by respondent no.1 under Section 142(1) of the

Act, petitioner pointed out that pursuant to the notices issued under Section

153C(1) of the Act returns have been filed on the Income Tax Department’s

portal for Assessment Years 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 and annexed

acknowledgment for filing the same. In the said letter, petitioner pointed

out that for the Assessment Year 2011-2012, there was some difficulty in

filing such a return on the portal and accordingly, requested respondent to

consider its original return as a return filed pursuant to notice under

Section 153C(1) of the Act. Petitioner also requested respondent no.1 to

provide materials in support of his claim to being clothed with jurisdiction

to issue the aforementioned notice including copies of the authorization for

search on Hubtown Limited, the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing

Officer of Hubtown Limited and petitioner, the date on which, it is alleged

that any material was handed over to petitioner’s Assessing Officer and the

material based upon which the satisfaction was recorded.

9 On 9th September 2021, respondent no.1 replied to petitioner’s

letter dated 31st August 2021 and provided only a copy of the

aforementioned satisfaction note dated 13th July 2021. Petitioner says that a

perusal of respondent’s reply will show that the covering letter along with

which the satisfaction note was provided has a DIN and is digitally signed.

However, a copy of the satisfaction note, bears no DIN or is the same signed

by respondent no.1. Since only the satisfaction note has been produced by

Gauri Gaekwad
 8/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

respondent on 9th September 2021, petitioner filed comprehensive

objections to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act

by respondent no.1 in the case of petitioner. Specific reference was made to

the fact that no incriminating material was found relating to petitioner

during the course of the search in the case of Hubtown Limited. Further,

that part of the loan (Rs.357,22,54,398/-) given to Hubtown Limited had

been written off in petitioner’s books of accounts during the year 31 st March

2017 (relevant for Assessment Year 2017-2018). Further, this write-off and

deduction claimed had been examined during the course of original

assessment and allowed via an assessment order dated 29 th June 2019

under Section 143(3) of the Act and, therefore, respondent no.1 clearly had

no jurisdiction to commence proceedings against petitioner under Section

153C of the Act.

By an order dated 21st September 2021, respondent rejected

petitioner’s objections.

It is petitioner’s case that the rejection is based on some clearly

extraneous grounds and without any reference to the relevant facts or the

well settled law on the subject. Thereafter, series of notices and exchanges

of correspondence and interactions took place between petitioner and

respondent no.1 in connection with an assessment sought to be framed

under Section 153C of the Act and petitioner replied/responded

thereto/sought time to reply thereto, insofar as all such notices are

Gauri Gaekwad
 9/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

concerned.

10 On 22nd September 2021, respondent no.1 issued a show cause

notice to petitioner requiring petitioner to show cause as to why :

(a) an amount of Rs.360,59,25,520/- being the “… that bad

debts written off….” should not be added under Section 37(1) of the Act to

the total income of petitioner for Assessment Year 2017-2018;

(b) an amount of Rs.12,12,79,672/- being transactions

allegedly entered into by petitioner with one Shah Coal Pvt. Ltd. should not

be added to the total income of petitioner for Assessment Year 2017-2018.

The show cause notice insofar as it relates to the alleged

transactions with Shah Coal Pvt. Ltd. are not relevant for the purposes of

this petition, which is challenging the jurisdiction of respondent to take

proceedings under Section 153C of the Act in the case of petitioner.

11 It is petitioner’s case that it is well settled that such claim of

having jurisdiction has to be established/defended by respondent no.1 only

with reference to the satisfaction note which does not refer to Shah Coal

Pvt. Ltd. Further, according to petitioner, in this regard the show cause

notice claims that a notice dated 11th September 2021 under Section 142(1)

of the Act was issued to petitioner but not yet replied to. Petitioner says that

the said notice dated 11th September 2021 (a Saturday) required petitioner

to reply by 13th September 2021 (a Monday), i.e., giving less than one

Gauri Gaekwad
 10/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

working day time, and was issued along with a series of other such notices

for various years. Hence by its reply dated 13 th September 2023 petitioner

had sought time to file a reply. Nevertheless, the very same question was

comprehensively replied to in petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice as

detailed hereinafter. Similar notices were issued and replies were filed for

other assessment years.

12 Petitioner filed its reply to the show cause notice dated

22nd September 2021 dealing with all the items required by respondent no.1

including all materials and details in respect of the alleged transactions

with Shah Coal Pvt. Ltd.

13 On 28th September 2021, respondent no.1 passed an order

under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the Act. In paragraph 4 of the

said order, respondent no.1 has claimed that “…. no return is available on

ITBA portal in response to notice under 153C of the Act. Therefore, notice

under Section 143(2) could not be issued a show cause notice dated

25.09.2021 (incorrect date mentioned - the correct date appears to be

22.09.2021) was issued for the Assessee to show cause as to why the

Assessment should not be completed under Section 144 of the Act. In

absence of return in response to notice u/s. 153C, the assessment is being

completed u/s. 144 of the Act after considering the submissions filed by the

asseessee on various dates”.

Gauri Gaekwad
 11/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has proceeded to review and

reconsider the view taken by the Assessing Officer in the original

assessment proceedings and has disallowed the amount of loan/bad debts

written-off during the Assessment Year 2017-2018 amounting to

Rs.360,59,25,520/-. Although, not relevant for the purposes of this petition,

respondent no.1 has also proceeded to make an addition of

Rs.12,12,79,672/- in respect of the alleged transaction with Shah Coal Pvt.

Ltd.

In sum and substance, as against the loss of Rs.270,23,38,422/-

previously assessed by order dated 29th June 2019 under Section 143(3) of

the Act, respondent no.1 has now assessed income of Rs.102,48,66,770/- as

income chargeable to tax in the case of petitioner for Assessment Year 2017-

2018.

14 This Court, by an order dated 11th April 2022 in Writ Petition

No.1730 of 2022, quashed the notice dated 8th April 2021 issued under

Section 148 of the Act. Petitioner says that the quashing of the reassessment

proposed by the said notice has been accepted by respondent no.1 and has

become final as no further steps have been taken by respondent no.1 in this

regard. Petitioner says that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section

153C of the Act and the assessment order dated 28 th September 2021 under

Section 153C read with Section 144 of the Act cannot be sustained for, inter

alia, the following reasons set out hereinafter.

Gauri Gaekwad
 12/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

15 Mr. Mistri submitted as under :

(a) Section 144 of the Act cannot be invoked to pass a best

judgment assessment. This is because an assessment is usually required to

be made under Section 143(3) of the Act after considering such evidence

the assessee may produce and after hearing the assessee. To invoke Section

144 of the Act, the conditions specified in Section 144 (1) (a), (b) or (c)

have to be satisfied. In the instant case, the impugned assessment order

shows respondent has erroneously proceeded on the basis that no return

has been filed by petitioner pursuant to notice under Section 153C of the

Act since no return was available in the ITBA portal. This is factually

incorrect as return was filed on 15 th August 2021 and an acknowledgment

is also on record, Therefore, respondent no.1 could not have passed an

order exercising power under Section 144 of the Act relying upon the

provisions of Section 144(1)(a) of the Act. As recorded in the impugned

assessment order, no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued

and, therefore, Section 144(1)(c) is not applicable. Even Section 144(1)(b)

of the Act is not applicable because petitioner has not failed to comply with

the terms of any notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. In any

event, even before passing an order under Section 144(1) of the Act, as

provided in 1st proviso, the Assessing Officer should have given the assessee

an opportunity of being heard as to why the proposed assessment of income

to the best of his judgment should not be made. Even such a notice has not

Gauri Gaekwad
 13/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

been issued. The order under Section 153C of the Act could have been

passed only after notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued and no

such notice has been issued. As held by the Apex Court in ACIT V/s. Hotel

Blue Moon1, it is a jurisdictional condition precedent that a notice under

Section 143(2) of the Act has to be issued.

(b) The impugned assessment order dated 28 th September

2021 does not bear a DIN. In view of the Circular No.19/2019 dated

14th August 2019 issued by CBDT in exercise of powers under Section

119(1) of the Act, the assessment order is invalid as no DIN is mentioned.

The Delhi High Court in CIT (International Taxation) V/s. Brandix

Mauritius Holdings Ltd.2 has held that an order passed in contravention of

the said Circular is void, bad in law and of no legal effect.

(c) Respondent has no jurisdiction to take proceedings under

Section 153C of the Act in the case of petitioner in respect of assessment

years where assessment proceedings have not abated. Respondent can

assume jurisdiction to assess or re-assess income under Section 153A/153C

of the Act in cases where assessment proceedings have not abated, if and

only if any incriminating material relating to petitioner has been found

during the course of proceedings under Section 132 of the Act in the case of

the person in whose case proceedings under Section 132 of the Act have

1. 188 Taxman 113(SC)

2. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 238 (Del)

Gauri Gaekwad
 14/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

been taken as held in (i) PCIT V/s. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.3 (ii) CIT V/s.

Continental Warehousing Corporation4 (iii) CIT V/s. Sinhagad Technical

Education Society5 and (iv) CIT V/s. Kabul Chawla6.

Whether any material found during the course of proceedings

under Section 132 of the Act in the case of Hubtown Limited is

incriminating or otherwise has to be tested based only on the satisfaction

note recorded by the Assessing Officer and nothing else as held in Ananta

Landmark Pvt. Ltd. V/s. DCIT, Central Circle7 and Jainam Investments V/s.

ACIT8. The satisfaction note does not show anything incriminating because

it only records that petitioner’s account was found in the books of Hubtown

Limited. Importantly, it tallied with the account of Hubtown Limited in the

books of petitioner. Therefore, there can be nothing incriminating in that.

The satisfaction note also says that petitioner had entered into

transactions of purchase and sale of shares of Hubtown Limited which has

been recorded in petitioner’s books of accounts and tax has been paid on

the capital gain. Therefore, there can be nothing incriminating in that.

Reference has also been made in the satisfaction note to an

alleged re-cast of loan from petitioner to Hubtown Limited into an advance

against property during year ended 31 st March 2019 and, therefore, there

can be nothing incriminating in that.

3. 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC)
4. 374 ITR 645 (Bom.)
5. 397 ITR 344 (SC)
6. 380 ITR 573 (Delhi)
7. 131 taxmann.com 52 (Bom.)
8. 131 taxmann.com 327 (Bom.)

Gauri Gaekwad
 15/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

Since no incriminating material relating to petitioner has been

found during the proceedings under Section 132 of the Act in the case of

Hubtown Limited and proceedings of petitioner having not abated,

respondent cannot assume jurisdiction to assess/re-assess petitioner’s

income under Section 153A/153C of the Act.

(d) In any event, it cannot be stated that any income

chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in respect of the issues set out in

the satisfaction note. This is because the satisfaction note seeks to re-assess

petitioner’s income in respect of two items, viz., (a) the loan account

granted by petitioner to Hubtown Limited and (b) transactions of purchase

and sale of shares of Hubtown Limited by petitioner. A specific query was

raised during the course of the original assessment proceedings regarding

write off of part of the loan granted by petitioner to Hubtown. Petitioner

replied and that was in consideration and petitioner’s explanation was

accepted by the Assessing Officer when completing petitioner’s assessment

on 29th June 2019. Therefore, there can be no question of the allowability

of this write-off now being reviewed and a different view being taken in

these proceedings. There is no failure to disclose also.

(e) Assuming for the sake of argument, respondent has

jurisdiction to take proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, Section

153A (1)(b) of the Act shows that respondent is empowered to assess or

re-assess the total income of six years immediately preceding the

Gauri Gaekwad
 16/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was

conducted and for the relevant assessment year or years. In order to make

an assessment for assessment year 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 the search was conducted, the

4th proviso to Section 153(A)(1) of the Act sets out certain further

conditions which are required to be fulfilled before a notice can be issued

for the relevant assessment years. Clause - (a) of the 4 th proviso requires

that the Assessing Officer must have in his possession books, documents or

evidence which reveal that income represented in the form of an asset

which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to rupees

fifty lakhs or more. In the case at hand, the satisfaction note refers only to

the loan account between petitioner and Hubtown Limited and the alleged

escapement is only in respect of the part thereof which is written off during

the year. Writing-off of a bad debt cannot fall within the ambit of “….

income, represented in the form of an asset…”. In any event, this write off

has been allowed in the original assessment proceedings and hence, the

same cannot be said to be income which has escaped assessment. Secondly,

the satisfaction note refers to trading in shares of Hubtown Limited which

has been undertaken on the stock exchange, recorded in the books of

account of petitioner and the resulting capital gain has been offered for tax

and the amount has been taxed in the hands of petitioner. Since the write-

Gauri Gaekwad
 17/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

off of a bad debt cannot be held to be an asset, clause - (a) of the 4 th proviso

to Section 153A(1) of the Act would bar any assessment that is proposed to

be made for the relevant assessment year/years, i.e., Assessment Year 2011-

2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.

16 Mr. Suresh Kumar submitted as under :

(a) The order dated 28th September 2021 and notice of

demand dated 28th September 2021 was communicated to assessee vide

letter dated 30th September 2021 having computer generated DIN. Thus,

communication of the assessment order and notice of demand has been

done vide letter dated 30th September 2021 having DIN No.ITBA/COM/F/

17/2021-22/1036046315(1). Thus, the communication of assessment order

and notice of demand is done only after creation of DIN Number, being

letter dated 30th September 2021. Thus this is in compliance with the CBDT

Circular No.19/2019 dated 14th August 2019.

(b) The proceeding under Section 153C of the Act was initiated

as per provisions of Section 153C of the Act, as the incriminating material

was found during the search of another assessee which belongs to

petitioner and satisfaction note was recorded by the Assessing Officer who

happened to be the Assessing Officer of the searched person as well as of

assessee, which was in accordance with Section 153C of the Act. Thus

entire proceeding upto stage of passing order dated 28 th September 2021

passed under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the Act was done in

Gauri Gaekwad
 18/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

accordance with law.

(c) Petitioner had written off the loans provided to Hubtown

Limited in Financial Year 2016-2017 and Financial Year 2017-2018 and

claimed an extraordinary benefit. This is akin to a mini-banking business

which is against the public policy as it is without any license from RBI or

state authorities for money lending business.

(d) Petitioner’s claim that assessment order is invalid is

baseless because the assessment order was passed on 28 th September 2021

and as per the records available on the ITBA portal, it was served

electronically on 30th September 2021 and also through post. The search in

the case of Hubtown was carried out on 30 th July 2019. Therefore, as per

the provisions of Section 153B of the Act assessment in case of petitioner

had to be made on or before 31st March 2021. Owing to the COVID

pandemic, this time limit was extended by another six months by the

Government of India. The limitation date for making assessment under

Section 153C of the Act in the case of petitioner was 30 th September 2021

which was adhered to.

(e) Petitioner’s case that the assessment having been completed

under Section 143(3) of the Act cannot be reviewed based on change of

opinion is not correct. Fresh assessment in case of petitioner was made in

the light of material/information came to light during the search and

certain proceedings and not merely on the basis of change of opinion of the

Gauri Gaekwad
 19/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

Assessing Officer. The material/information on the basis of which fresh

assessment was made has already been discussed in the satisfaction note.

Findings/Conclusions :

17 Whether the provisions of Section 144 of the Act could be

invoked to pass a best judgment assessment?

(a) Under the scheme of the Act, an assessment is usually

required to be made under Section 143(3) of the Act, after hearing such

evidence as the assessee may produce, after taking into account all relevant

material gathered and after hearing the assessee. The provisions of Section

144 of the Act are special and exceptional which can only be invoked if any

of the conditions specified in Section 144 (1) (a), (b) or (c) are satisfied.

Section 144 of the Act reads as under :

Section 144 (1) If any person -

(a) fails to make the return required [under sub-section (1) of
section 139] and has not made a return or a revised return
under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) [or an updated return
under sub-section (8A)] of that section, or
(b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under
sub-section (1) of section 142 [or fails to comply with a
direction issued under sub- section (2A) of that section], or
(c) having made a return, fails to comply with all the terms of a
notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 143,
the [Assessing] Officer, after taking into account all relevant
material which the [Assessing] Officer has gathered, [shall, after
giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, make the
assessment] of the total income or loss to the best of his
judgment and determine the sum payable by the assessee on the
basis of such assessment :
[Provided that such opportunity shall be given by the Assessing
Officer by serving a notice calling upon the assessee to show
cause, on a date and time to be specified in the notice, why the
assessment should not be completed to the best of his

Gauri Gaekwad
 20/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

judgment :
Provided further that it shall not be necessary to give such
opportunity in a case where a notice under sub-section (1) of
section 142 has been issued prior to the making of an
assessment under this section.]
[(2) The provisions of this section as they stood immediately
before their amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment)
Act, 1987 (4 of 1988), shall apply to and in relation to any
assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day
of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year and references in
this section to the other provisions of this Act shall be construed
as references to those provisions as for the time being in force
and applicable to the relevant assessment year.]

In the instant case, as paragraph 4 of the impugned assessment

order for Assessment Year 2017-2018 clearly shows, respondent has

erroneously proceeded on the basis that no return had been filed by

petitioner pursuant to the notice under Section 153C of the Act, since he

records that no return is available on the ITBA portal. This factual basis is

demonstrably erroneous. A return of income pursuant to notice issued

under Section 153C(1) of the Act has been filed on 15 th August 2021 and an

acknowledgment showing an e-filing acknowledgment number is on record.

Non availability of return on the ITBA portal is the only basis on which

respondent no.1 seeks to exercise power under Section 144 of the Act

relying upon the provisions of Section 144(1)(a) of the Act. In view of the

irrefutable fact that Section 144(1)(a) of the Act cannot apply since

petitioner has filed a return, no best judgment assessment under Section

144 of the Act could have been passed;

Gauri Gaekwad
 21/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

(b) Respondent no.1 has also, in the impugned order of

assessment dated 28th September 2021, recorded that no notice under

Section 143(2) of the Act was issued by him. Therefore, there is no question

of the provisions of Section 144(1)(c) of the Act being applicable;

(c) Insofar as, the provisions of Section 144(1)(b) of the Act

are concerned, as explained hereinabove, there has been no failure to

comply with the terms of any notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act.

Therefore, the purported exercise of powers under Section 144

of the Act cannot be sustained;

(d) Even if one assumes that one of the jurisdictional

preconditions set out in Section 144(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Act is satisfied

then, Section 144(1) of the Act read with the 1 st proviso requires that an

Assessing Officer shall give an assessee an opportunity of being heard as to

why the proposed assessment of income to the best of his judgment should

not be made. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 22 nd September

2021 shows that this has not been done in the instant case.

Further, the provisions of the 2 nd proviso to Section 144(1) of

the Act cannot apply since petitioner has not failed to comply with any

notice under Section 142(1) of the Act;

(e) Therefore, the impugned assessment order dated

28th September 2021 could, if at all, have been passed under Section 153C

read with Section 143(3) of the Act. If the validity of the impugned order of

Gauri Gaekwad
 22/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

assessment dated 28th September 2021 is tested on this basis it cannot be

sustained. It is a jurisdictional condition precedent to passing an order

under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Act that a notice under

Section 143(2) of the Act must be issued as held in Hotel Blue Moon

(Supra). The Apex Court held that issuance of notice under Section 143(2)

of the Act was a jurisdictional condition precedent for passing an

assessment under Section 153A/153C. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of Hotel Blue

Moon (Supra) read as under :

15. We may now revert back to Section 158 BC(b) which is the
material provision which requires our consideration. Section 158
BC(b) provides for enquiry and assessment. The said provision
reads "that 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-section
(2) and (3) of Section 143, Section 144 and Section 145 shall, so
far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates
that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing
officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure
like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the
assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide
for accepting the return as provided under Section 143(i)(a).
The assessing officer has to complete the assessment under
Section 143(3) only. In case of default in not filing the return or
not complying with the notice under Sections 143(2)/142, the
assessing officer is authorized to complete the assessment ex-
parte under Section 144. Clause (b) of Section 158 BC by
referring to Section 143(2) and (3) would appear to imply that
the provisions of Section 143(1) are excluded. But Section
143(2) itself becomes necessary only where it becomes necessary
to check the return, so that where block return conforms to the
undisclosed income inferred by the authorities, there is no
reason, why the authorities should issue notice under Section
143(2). However, if an assessment is to be completed under
Section 143(3) read with Section 158-BC, notice under Section
143(2) should be issued within one year from the date of filing
of block return. Omission on the part of the assessing authority
to issue notice under Section 143(2) cannot be a procedural
irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the
requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed
with. The other important feature that requires to be noticed is

Gauri Gaekwad
 23/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

that the Section 158 BC(b) specifically refers to some of the

provisions of the Act which requires to be followed by the
assessing officer while completing the block assessments under
Chapter XIV-B of the Act. This legislation is by incorporation.
This Section even speaks of sub- sections which are to be
followed by the assessing officer. Had the intention of the
legislature was to exclude the provisions of Chapter XIV of the
Act, the legislature would have or could have indicated that also.
A reading of the provision would clearly indicate, in our opinion,
if the assessing officer, if for any reason, repudiates the return
filed by the assessee in response to notice under Section 158
BC(a), the assessing officer must necessarily issue notice under
Section 143(2) of the Act within the time prescribed in the
proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act. Where the legislature
intended to exclude certain provisions from the ambit of Section
158 BC(b) it has done so specifically. Thus, when Section 158
BC(b) specifically refers to applicability of the proviso thereto
cannot be exclude. We may also notice here itself that the
clarification given by CBDT in its circular No.717 dated 14th
August, 1995, has a binding effect on the department, but not on
the Court. This circular clarifies the requirement of law in
respect of service of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143
of the Act. Accordingly, we conclude even for the purpose of
Chapter XIV-B of the Act, for the determination of undisclosed
income for a block period under the provisions of Section 158
BC, the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of
Section 143 are applicable and no assessment could be made
without issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. However,
it is contended by Sri Shekhar, learned counsel for the
department that in view of the expression "So far as may be" in
Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but
optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In
support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the
observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985]
155 ITR 166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that
Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating
to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed
under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely
means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the
search provided in Section 165 has to be generally followed. The
expression "so far as may be" has always been construed to mean
that those provisions may be generally followed to the extent
possible. The learned counsel for the respondent has brought to
our notice the observations made by this Court in the case of
Maganlal Vs. Jaiswal Industries, Neemach and Ors., [(1989) 4
SCC 344], wherein this Court while dealing with the scope and
import of the expression "as far as practicable" has stated
"without anything more the expression `as far as possible' will
mean that the manner provided in the code for attachment or
sale of property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its
entirety except such provision therein which may not be

Gauri Gaekwad
 24/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

practicable to be applied.

16. The case of the revenue is that the expression `so far as may
be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions
of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section 143 strictly for
the purpose of Block assessments. We do not agree with the
submissions of the learned counsel for the revenue, since we do
not see any reason to restrict the scope and meaning of the
expression `so far as may be apply'. In our view, where the
assessing officer in repudiation of the return filed under Section
158 BC(a) proceeds to make an enquiry, he has necessarily to
follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of
Section 143.

In the instant case, paragraph 4 of the impugned assessment

order records that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been

issued. The Revenue has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the said

notices are not required since no return of income had been filed by

petitioner which was factually incorrect;

(f) For all the reasons set out above, the impugned order dated

28th September 2021, whether treated as having been passed under Section

153C read with Section 144 or Section 143(3) of the Act cannot be

sustained and is bad in law, of no legal effect and ought to be quashed and

set aside;

(g) On this ground alone, rule ought to be made absolute in

terms of prayer clause - (a) of the following petitions :

A.Y. 2012-2013 - WP No.2598 of 2021

A.Y. 2013-2014 - WP No.2847 of 2021

A.Y. 2014-2015 - WP No.2597 of 2021

A.Y. 2015-2016 - WP No.2594 of 2021

Gauri Gaekwad
 25/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

A.Y. 2016-2017 - WP No.2588 of 2021

A.Y. 2017-2018 - WP No.2595 of 2021

A.Y. 2018-2019 - WP No.2625 of 2021

A.Y. 2019-2020 - WP No.2696 of 2021

18 Whether the impugned assessment order dated 28th September

2021 is invalid on account of it being issued without a DIN?

(a) The CBDT, in exercise of powers under Section 119(1) of

the Act, has issued a Circular No.19/2019 dated 14th August 2019 providing

that no communication shall be issued by any Income Tax Authority inter

alia relating to assessment orders, statutory or otherwise, inquiries,

approvals, etc. to an assessee or any other person on or after 1 st October

2019 unless a computer generated DIN has been allotted and is quoted in

the body of such communication. The Circular reads as under :

CIRCULAR NO.19/2019 (F. NO.225/95/2019-ITA.II],

DATED 14-8-2019

With the launch of various e-governance Initiatives, Income tax

Department is moving toward total computerization of its work.
This has led to a significant improvement in delivery of services
and has also brought greater transparency in the functioning of
the tax-administration Presently, almost all notices and orders
are being generated electronically on the Income Tax Business
Application (ITBA) platform. However, it has been brought to the
notice of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (the Board) that there
have been some instances in which the notice. order, summons,
letter and any correspondence (hereinafter referred to as
"communication" were found to have been issued manually,
without maintaining a proper audit trail of such communication.

2. In order to prevent such instances and to maintain proper

audit trail of all communication, the Board in exercise of power
under section 119 of the income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act"), has decided that no communication
shall be issued by any income-tax authority relating to

Gauri Gaekwad
 26/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

assessment, appeals, orders, statutory or otherwise, exemptions,

enquiry. investigation, verification of information, penalty,
prosecution, rectification, approval etc. to the assessee or any
other person, on or after the 1st day of October, 2019 unless a
computer- generated Document Identification Number (DIN) has
been allotted and is duly quoted in the body of such
communication.

3. In exceptional circumstances such as,-

(i) when there are technical difficulties in generating/allotting/

quoting the DIN and issuance of communication electronically;or

(ii) when communication regarding enquiry, verification etc. is

required to be issued by an income-tax authority, who is outside
the office, for discharging his official duties: or

(iii) when due to delay in PAN migration. PAN is lying with non-
jurisdictional Assessing Officer; or

(iv) when PAN of assessee is not available and where a

proceeding under the Act (other than verification under section
131 or section 133 of the Act) is sought to be initiated; or

(v) when the functionality to issue communication is not

available in the system, the communication may be issued
manually but only after recording reasons in writing in the file
and with prior written approval of the Chief Commissioner/
Director General of income-tax. In cases where manual
communication is required to be issued due to delay in PAN
migration, the proposal seeking approval for issuance of manual
communication shall include the reason for delay in PAN
migration. The communication issued under aforesaid
circumstances shall state the fact that the communication is
issued manually without a DIN and the date of obtaining of the
written approval of the Chief Commissioner/ Director General of
Income-tax for issue of manual communication in the following
format-

“……. This communication issues manually without a DIN on

account of reason/reasons given in para3(i)/3(ii)/3(iii)/3(iv)/
3(v) of the CBDT Circular No …. dated (strike off those which
are not applicable) and with the approval of the Chief
Commissioner/Director General of Income Tax vide number ….
dated ….

4. Any communication which is not in conformity with Para-2

and Para-3 above, shall be treated as invalid and shall be
deemed to have never been issued.

Gauri Gaekwad
 27/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

5. The communication issued manually in the three situations

specified in para 3- (i), (ii) or (iii) above shall have to be
regularised within 15 working days of its issuance, by-

i. uploading the manual communication on the System.

ii. compulsorily generating the DIN on the System;

iii. communicating the DIN so generated to the assessee/any

other person as per electronically generated pro-forma available
on the System.

6. An intimation of issuance of manual communication for the

reasons mentioned in para 3(v) shall be sent to the Principal
Director General of Income-tax (Systems) within seven days
from the date of its issuance.

7. Further, in all pending assessment proceedings, where notices

were issued manually, prior to issuance of this Circular, the
Income-tax authorities shall identify such cases and shall upload
the notices in these cases on the Systems by 31th October, 2019.

Paragraph 3 of the Circular sets out five exceptional

circumstances where the aforementioned mandatory requirement may not

be adhered to, but requires that if an order/communication is to be issued

without a DIN, it can be done only after recording reasons in writing in the

file and with the prior written approval of the Chief Commissioner/Director

General of Income Tax. Further, paragraph 3 requires that if such

exceptional circumstances are claimed, the orders/communication issued

without a DIN must state this fact in a specific format set out in paragraph 3

of the Circular.

Paragraph 4 of the Circular provides that any order/

communication which is not in conformity with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the

Circular shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been

Gauri Gaekwad
 28/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

issued.

The contents of the Circular have been re-iterated in a Press

Release dated 14th August 2019;

(b) It is indisputable that the impugned assessment order dated

28th September 2021 does not bear a DIN and further that the said order

issued without a DIN does not bear the required format set out in

paragraph 3 of the Circular and, therefore, the impugned assessment orders

for Assessment Year 2011-2012 to 2019-2020 ought to be treated as invalid

and deemed never to have been issued. We find support for this view in

Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (Supra) where the Hon’ble Delhi High

Court has held that an order passed in contravention of the said Circular is

void, bad in law and of no legal effect. Paragraphs 16 to 17.1, 18 and 19

read as under :

16. The final assessment order was passed by the Assessing

Officer (AO) on 15.10.2019, under Section 147/144(C)
(13/143(3) of the Act. Concededly, the final assessment order
does not bear a DIN. There is nothing on record to show that
the appellant/revenue took steps to demonstrate before the
Tribunal that there were exceptional circumstances, as referred
to in paragraph 3 of the 2019 Circular, which would sustain the
communication of the final assessment order manually, albeit,
without DIN.

16.1. Given this situation, clearly paragraph 4 of the 2019

Circular would apply.

17. Paragraph 4 of the 2019 Circular, as extracted hereinabove,

decidedly provides that any communication which is not in
conformity with paragraph 2 and 3 shall be treated as invalid
and shall be deemed to have never been issued. The
phraseology of paragraph 4 of the 2019 Circular fairly puts such
communication, which includes communication of assessment
order, in the category of communication which are non-est in

Gauri Gaekwad
 29/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

law.

17.1. It is also well established that circulars issued by the CBDT

in exercise of its powers under Section 119 of the Act are
binding on the revenue.

xxxxxxxxxxx

18. The argument advanced on behalf the appellant/revenue,

that recourse can be taken to Section 292B of the Act, is
untenable, having regard to the phraseology used in paragraph
4 of the 2019 Circular.

19. The object and purpose of the issuance of the 2019 Circular,
as indicated hereinabove, inter alia, was to create an audit trail.
Therefore, the communication relating to assessments, appeals,
orders, etcetera which find mention in paragraph 2 of the 2019
Circular, albeit without DIN, can have no standing in law, having
regard to the provisions of paragraph 4 of the 2019 Circular.

(c) During the course of hearing, Mr. Suresh Kumar produced

an intimation letter dated 13th October 2021 stating that the order dated

28th September 2021 under Section 153C of the Act has a DIN, which is set

out therein. Even if this is held to be in compliance with paragraph 5 of the

Circular, which deals with regularization of communications without DIN,

this can only seek to regularize the failure to generate a DIN, but yet the

requirements of paragraph 3 of the Circular will still remain contravened

and consequently, the order dated 28th September 2021 ought to be treated

as invalid and never issued;

(d) The said Circular also applies to the satisfaction note dated

13th July 2021 issued by respondent no.1. The satisfaction note will fall

within the scope of paragraph 2 of the Circular as a communication of the

specified type issued to any person. In the case of the satisfaction note no

Gauri Gaekwad
 30/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

regularization dated 13th October 2021 has been issued;

(e) In view of the binding nature of Circular issued under

Section 119 of the Act, and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,

the consequences of contravention of the Circular set out above, therefore,

ought to be given full effect to. The object of the said Circular is clear and

laudatory and intended to ensure that proper trail of all assessment and

other orders are maintained and further that any deviation therefrom can

only be undertaken after prior written approval of the higher authorities

under the Act. Therefore, the satisfaction note dated 13 th July 2021 and the

impugned order of assessment dated 28th September 2021 ought to be

treated as invalid and deemed never to have been issued;

(f) On this ground, rule ought to be made absolute in the

following petitions :

A.Y. 2011-2012 - WP No.2593 of 2021

A.Y. 2012-2013 - WP No.2598 of 2021

A.Y. 2013-2014 - WP No.2847 of 2021

A.Y. 2014-2015 - WP No.2597 of 2021

A.Y. 2015-2016 - WP No.2594 of 2021

A.Y. 2016-2017 - WP No.2588 of 2021

A.Y. 2017-2018 - WP No.2595 of 2021

A.Y. 2018-2019 - WP No.2625 of 2021

A.Y. 2019-2020 - WP No.2696 of 2021

Gauri Gaekwad
 31/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

19 Whether respondent has jurisdiction to take proceedings under

Section 153C of the Act in the case of petitioner in respect of assessment
years where assessments proceedings have not abated?

Section 153A and Section 153C of the Act read as under :

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 31 st day 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 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 [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
or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income,

Gauri Gaekwad
 32/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

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 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 (i) in as applicable to such assessment year.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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,-

Gauri Gaekwad
 33/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

(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 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 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

Gauri Gaekwad
 34/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

(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.]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(a) Respondent can assume jurisdiction to assess or re-assess

income under Section 153A/153C of the Act in cases where assessment

proceedings have not abated, if and only if any incriminating material

relating to petitioner has been found during the course of proceedings

under Section 132 of the Act in the case of the person in whose case

proceedings under Section 132 of the Act have been taken ( Hubtown

Limited). In Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), the Apex Court held that

where no incriminating material is found/unearthed during the search, the

Assessing Officer cannot assess or re-assess taking into consideration the

other materials in respect of unabated/completed assessments. Paragraphs

5 to 7.1, 8 and 11 to 14 in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) read as

under :

5. That the question which is posed for consideration in the

present set of appeals is, as to whether in respect of completed
assessments/unabated assessments, whether the jurisdiction of
AO to make assessment is confined to incriminating material
found during the course of search under Section 132 or
requisition under Section 132A or not, i.e., whether any
addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating
material found during the course of search under section 132 or

Gauri Gaekwad
 35/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

requisition under Section 132 A of the Act, 1961 or not.

6. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that once upon the

search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the
assessment has to be done under Section 153A of the Act, 1961
and the AO thereafter has the jurisdiction to pass assessment
orders and to assess the ‘total income’ taking into consideration
other material, though no incriminating material is found
during the search even in respect of completed/unabated
assessments.

7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such various

High Courts, namely, Delhi High Court, Gujarat High Court,
Bombay High Court, Karnataka High Court, Orissa High Court,
Calcutta High Court, Rajasthan High Court and the Kerala High
Court have taken the view that no addition can be made in
respect of completed/unabated assessments in absence of any
incriminating material. The lead judgment is by the Delhi High
Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra), which has been
subsequently followed and approved by the other High Courts,
referred to hereinabove. One another lead judgment on the
issue is the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of
Saumya Construction (supra), which has been followed by the
Gujarat High Court in the subsequent decisions, referred to
hereinabove. Only the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pr.
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mehndipur Balaji, 2022 SCC
OnLine All 444 : (2022) 447 ITR 517 has taken a contrary view.

7.1. In the case of Kabul Chawla (supra), the Delhi High Court,
while considering the very issue and on interpretation of Section
153A of the Act, 1961, has summarised the legal position as
under: Summary of the legal position. On a conspectus of
Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and
in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned
decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under :

i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice
under Section 153A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the
person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs
immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in
which the search takes place.

ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the

search shall abate. The total income for such Ays will have to be
computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise.

iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of

the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search
takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the
‘total income’ of the aforementioned six years in separate
assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words,

Gauri Gaekwad
 36/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the

six AYs “in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income
would be brought to tax”.

iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be
strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the
search, or other post-search material or information available
with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does
not mean that the assessment “can be arbitrary or made without
any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an
assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis
of seized material.”

v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed

assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or
reassessment can be made. The word ‘assess’ in Section 153 A is
relatable to abated proceedings (i.e., those pending on the date
of search) and the word ‘reassess’ to completed assessment
proceedings.

vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the

jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment
under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall
be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of
the search and any other material existing or brought on the
record of the AO.

vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO

while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the
basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the
course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed
income or property discovered in the course of search which
were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in
the course of original assessment.

8. For the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are in complete

agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the
case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the
case of Saumya Construction (supra), taking the view that no
addition can be made in respect of completed assessment in
absence of any incriminating material.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search
under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO
gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ in
respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment
years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second
proviso to Section 153A, the assessment or re-assessment, if any,
relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six

Gauri Gaekwad
 37/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

assessment years 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. As per sub-section (2) of Section
153A, 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 to sub-section (1),
shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the
order of such annulment by the Commissioner. Therefore, the
intention of the legislation seems to be that in case of search
only the pending assessment/reassessment proceedings shall
abate and the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or
reassess the ‘total income’ for the entire six years period/block
assessment period. The intention does not seem to be to re-open
the completed/unabated assessments, unless any incriminating
material is found with respect to concerned assessment year
falling within last six years preceding the search. Therefore, on
true interpretation of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, in case of a
search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A and
during the search any incriminating material is found, even in
case of unabated/completed assessment, the AO would have the
jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ taking into
consideration the incriminating material collected during the
search and other material which would include income declared
in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as the
undisclosed income. However, in case during the search no
incriminating material is found, in case of completed/unabated
assessment, the only remedy available to the Revenue would be
to initiate the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48
of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in
sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannot be
left with no remedy. Therefore, even in case of block assessment
under section 153A and in case of unabated/completed
assessment and in case no incriminating material is found
during the search, the power of the Revenue to have the
reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Act has to be saved,
otherwise the Revenue would be left without remedy.

12. If the submission on behalf of the Revenue that in case of

search even where no incriminating material is found during the
course of search, even in case of unabated/completed
assessment, the AO can assess or reassess the income/total
income taking into consideration the other material is accepted,
in that case, there will be two assessment orders, which shall
not be permissible under the law. At the cost of repetition, it is
observed that the assessment under Section 153A of the Act is
linked with the search and requisition under Sections 132 and
132A of the Act. The object of Section 153A is to bring under
tax the undisclosed income which is found during the course of

Gauri Gaekwad
 38/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

search or pursuant to search or requisition. Therefore, only in a

case where the undisclosed income is found on the basis of
incriminating material, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to
assess or reassess the total income for the entire six years block
assessment period even in case of completed/unabated
assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only
pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the
AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated
assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated
assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf of the
Revenue is accepted, in that case, second proviso to section
153A and sub-section (2) of Section 153A would be redundant
and/or re-writing the said provisions, which is not permissible
under the law.

13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete

agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the
case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the
case of Saumya Construction (supra) and the decisions of the
other High Courts taking the view that no addition can be made
in respect of the completed assessments in absence of any
incriminating material.

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is
concluded as under :

i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under

Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block
assessment under section 153A;

ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated;

iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even,

in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would
assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’
taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed
during the search and the other material available with the AO
including the income declared in the returns; and

iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the

search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into
consideration the other material in respect of completed
assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect
of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made
by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during
the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under
Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the
completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in
exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to
fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under
sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The

Gauri Gaekwad
 39/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

question involved in the present set of appeals and review

petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the
appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are
hereby dismissed. No costs.”

(emphasis supplied)

Therefore, no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer in

absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search

under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act;

(b) In Continental Warehousing Corporation (Supra), the Court

held that the notice under Section 153A was founded on search. If there

was no incriminating material found during the search then the Tribunal

was right in holding that the power under Section 153A being not expected

to be exercised routinely, should be exercised if the search revealed any

incriminating material. If that was not found then in relation to the second

phase of three years, there was no warrant for making an order within the

meaning of this provision;

(c) In Sinhagad Technical Education Society (Supra), the Court

held that in satisfaction note incriminating material seized must pertain to

assessment year in question. Notices issued under Section 153C for other

assessment years are not sustainable. Therefore, under Section 153C of the

Act incriminating material which was seized had to pertain to the

assessment years in question;

Gauri Gaekwad
 40/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

(d) The question of whether any material found during the

course of proceedings under Section 132 of the Act in the case of Hubtown

Limited is incriminating or otherwise has to be tested based only on the

satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer/s. The contents of the

said satisfaction note are the only item/material to be looked at in this

regard and respondent cannot seek to augment, supplement or add to

materials recorded to support the claim that incriminating material has

been found. Further respondent cannot refer to any other documents or

material to establish such a claim. We find support in (i) Ananta Landmark

Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and (ii) Jainam Investments (Supra), where the Courts

have held that the question of the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction to

undertake proceedings has to be tested/examined only on the basis of

reasons recorded at the time of issuing a notice under Section 148 of the

Act seeking to reopen an assessment. These reasons cannot be improved

upon and/or supplemented much less substituted by affidavit and/or oral

submission;

(e) In the instant case, the satisfaction note dated 13 th July

2021 (common for all Assessment Years) insofar it relates to Assessment

Year 2017-2018 only records that :

(i) an account of petitioner in the books of Hubtown Limited

was found.

Gauri Gaekwad
 41/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

It is important to note that the said account agreed exactly to

the account of Hubtown Limited in the books of petitioner, a fact verified

during the course of the survey on the day after the search, i.e., 31 st July

2019.

(ii) petitioner had entered into transactions of purchase and

sale of shares of Hubtown Limited which have been recorded in petitioner’s

books of accounts and tax paid on the resulting gain.

(iii) reference is made to an alleged re-cast of loan from

petitioner to Hubtown Limited into an advance against property during year

ended 31st March 2019 and the same is not relevant to Assessment Year

2017-2018.

(f) Accordingly, it is irrefutable that no incriminating material

relating to petitioner has been found during proceedings under Section 132

of the Act in the case of Hubtown Limited;

(g) The assessment of petitioner has clearly not abated in terms

of the 2nd Proviso to Section 153A(1) of the Act. Although the 1st proviso to

Section 153C(1) of the Act says “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

Gauri Gaekwad
 42/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

person”, the same cannot be applied in the instant case. This is because :

(i) in cases such as the present case where the Assessing Officer

of the person searched and the other person is the same there is no

requirement (or possibility) to hand over or receive books of

account/documents to/from the very same Assessing Officer. Consequently,

the date for testing whether assessment proceedings have abated is as

specified in 2nd Proviso to Section 153A of the Act.

In Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. V/s. PCIT9 the court held as under:

5.1. As observed hereinabove, the short question which is posed

for the consideration of this Court is, whether there is a
compliance of the provisions of Section 153C of the Act by the
Assessing Officer and all the conditions which are required to be
fulfilled before initiating the proceedings under Section 153C of
the Act have been satisfied or not?

6. This Court had an occasion to consider the scheme of Section

153C of the Act and the conditions precedent to be
fulfilled/complied with before issuing notice under Section
153C of the Act in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (supra) as well
as by the Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd.
(supra). As held, before issuing notice under Section 153C of
the Act, 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. That
thereafter, after recording such satisfaction by the Assessing
Officer of the searched person, he may transmit the
records/documents/things/papers etc. to the Assessing Officer
having jurisdiction over such other person. After receipt of the
aforesaid satisfaction and upon examination of such other
documents relating to such other person, the jurisdictional
Assessing Officer may proceed to issue a notice for the purpose
of completion of the assessment under Section 158BD of the Act
and the other provisions of Chapter XIV-B shall apply.

6.1. It cannot be disputed that the aforesaid requirements are

held to be mandatorily complied with. There can be two
eventualities. It may so happen that the Assessing Officer of the
searched person is different from the Assessing Officer of the
other person and in the second eventuality, the Assessing Officer
9. 423 ITR 281(SC)

Gauri Gaekwad
 43/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

of the searched person and the other person is the same. Where
the Assessing Officer of the searched person is different from the
Assessing Officer of the other person, there shall be a
satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person
and as observed hereinabove that thereafter the Assessing
Officer of the searched person is required to transmit the
documents so seized to the Assessing Officer of the other
person. The Assessing Officer of the searched person
simultaneously while transmitting the documents shall forward
his satisfaction note to the Assessing Officer of the other person
and is also required to make a note in the file of a searched
person that he has done so. However, as rightly observed and
held by the Delhi High Court in the case of Ganpati Fincap
(supra), the same is for the administrative convenience and the
failure by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, after
preparing and dispatching the satisfaction note and the
documents to the Assessing Officer of the other person, to make
a note in the file of a searched person, will not vitiate the entire
proceedings under Section 153C of the Act against the other
person. At the same time, the satisfaction note by the Assessing
Officer of the searched person that the documents etc. so seized
during the search and seizure from the searched person
belonged to the other person and transmitting such material to
the Assessing Officer of the other person is mandatory. However,
in the case where the Assessing Officer of the searched person
and the other person is the same, it is sufficient by the Assessing
Officer to note in the satisfaction note that the documents seized
from the searched person belonged to the other person. Once
the note says so, then the requirement of Section 153C of the
Act is fulfilled. In case, where the Assessing Officer of the
searched person and the other person is the same, there can be
one satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer, as he
himself is the Assessing Officer of the searched person and also
the Assessing Officer of the other person. However, as observed
hereinabove, he must be conscious and satisfied that the
documents seized/recovered from the searched person belonged
to the other person. In such a situation, the satisfaction note
would be qua the other person. The second requirement of
transmitting the documents so seized from the searched person
would not be there as he himself will be the Assessing Officer of
the searched person and the other person and therefore there is
no question of transmitting such seized documents to himself.”

(emphasis supplied)

(ii) in any case, the date of any presumed/assumed hand-over

of books/documents from respondent to himself has not been specified by

Gauri Gaekwad
 44/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

respondent, even though such handover is not possible and held not to be

necessary by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

(iii) In any event, the notice dated 8 th April 2021 under Section

148 of the Act was quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1730 of 2022

and must be held never to have been issued. As a result, the assessment

proceedings came to an end on 29th June 2019 when the order under

Section 143(3) of the Act was passed and hence, assessment proceedings

were not pending thereafter. For this reason as well, the assessment is not

abated.

(h) The Revenue also concurs with and proceeds on the basis

set out in paragraph 19(e)(i) above in as much as limitation under Section

153B(1) of the Act, 3rd proviso (ii) which is in pari-materia to the

1st proviso to Section 153C(1) of the Act is computed by the Revenue on the

same basis. In paragraph 4.9 of the affidavit in reply filed through one

Kartik Saresa, DCIT Central Circle – 2(4), Mumbai, affirmed on 24 th March

2022, it is stated :

4.9. With reference to the contents of Para No.4(g) of the Writ

Petition, I say that under this para, the petitioner has claimed
that the assessment order was made beyond the time limit
prescribed in section 153B of the Act. In this regard, reference is
invited to section 153B, the relevant proviso to the same is
reproduced hereunder -
"Provided also that in the case where the last of the
authorisations for search under section 132 or for requisition
under section 132A was executed during the financial year
commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2019,-
(i) the provisions of clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub- section
shall have effect, as if for the words "twenty-one months", the

Gauri Gaekwad
 45/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

words "twelve months" had been substituted;

(ii) the period of limitation for making the assessment or
reassessment in case of other person referred to in section 153C,
shall be the period of twelve months 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 was
executed or twelve months from the end of the financial year in
which books of account or documents or assets seized or
requisitioned are handed over under section 153C to the
Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person,
whichever is later…"
The search in case of M/s Hubtown was carried out on
30.07.2019. Therefore, as per the provisions of section. 153B,
the assessment in case of the petitioner had to be made on or
before 31.03.2021. Owing to the Covid-19 pandemic, this time
limit was extended by another six months by the Govt. of India.
The limitation date for making assessment u/s 153C in case of
the petitioner was 30.09.2021 which was adhered to. Hence, the
claims of the petitioner in this regard do not hold any merit.

(i) Therefore, for all the reasons set out hereinabove, since the

original assessment in the case of petitioner has not abated, and since no

incriminating material has been found relating to petitioner in the course of

proceedings under Section 132 of the Act in the case of Hubtown Limited,

respondent cannot assume jurisdiction to assess/re-assess petitioner under

Section 153C of the Act;

(j) On these grounds also, rule ought to be made absolute in

terms of prayer clause – (a) in the following petitions :

A.Y. 2011-2012 - WP No.2593 of 2021

A.Y. 2012-2013 - WP No.2598 of 2021

A.Y. 2013-2014 - WP No.2847 of 2021

A.Y. 2014-2015 - WP No.2597 of 2021

Gauri Gaekwad
 46/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

A.Y. 2015-2016 - WP No.2594 of 2021

A.Y. 2016-2017 - WP No.2588 of 2021

A.Y. 2017-2018 - WP No.2595 of 2021

(k) For the sake of completeness, we set out, as pointed out by

Mr. Mistri, the minor differences in each of the assessment years above-

mentioned, although the same will make no difference to the findings set

out in paragraph 19 hereinabove.

Event Assessment Years

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Last date 30.09.2017

for issue of
notice u/s.
143(2)

Assessment 21.02.2014 31.03.2014 06.08.2015 14.12.2015 09.06.2017

order u/s.
143(3)

Section 19.04.2021 08.04.2021 08.04.2021

148
seeking to
re-open
assessment

Order in 11.04.2022 11.04.2022 11.04.2022

Writ
Petition
quashing
the section
148 notice.

20 Whether it can be said that any income chargeable to tax has

escaped assessment in respect of the issues set out in the satisfaction note?

(a) Insofar as Assessment Year 2017-2018 is concerned,

Gauri Gaekwad
 47/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

respondent no.1, in the satisfaction note, has recorded that he seeks to

re-assess petitioner’s income in respect of two items – (i) the loan account

recording the loan granted by petitioner to Hubtown Limited and

(ii) transactions of purchase and sale of shares of Hubtown Limited by

petitioner;

(b) During the course of the original assessment proceedings, a

specific query was raised by respondent as to the allowability of write off of

part of the loan granted by petitioner to Hubtown Limited. In response, full

and comprehensive details of the amount written-off was provided as well

as the reasons therefore and the same were accepted by the Assessing

Officer when completing petitioner’s assessment on 29 th June 2019.

Therefore, there can be no question of the allowability of this write-off now

being reviewed and a different view being taken in these proceedings.

Ex-facie, there has been no failure to disclose truly and fully all material

facts. Further, no new tangible material having a bearing on petitioner’s

income in this regard has come to the notice of respondent. Disallowing the

very same write-off that had been allowed in the original assessment clearly

constitutes a change of opinion and a review of the original decision taken

by the assessing officer and cannot fall within the ambit of the phrase “ the

Assessing Officer is satisfied….. that the documents… seized….. have a

bearing on the determination of the total income…. ” of petitioner. The

provisions of Section 153C of the Act cannot override the jurisdictional

Gauri Gaekwad
 48/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

safeguards and conditions precedent required to assess or re-assess income

such as a review, a change of opinion, a different view being taken without

any new tangible material and without any failure on the part of petitioner

to disclose fully and truly all material facts. In similar circumstances, this

principle has been upheld by this Court in the context of issue of a notice

under Section 148 of the Act [Urban Homes Realty V/s. Union of India10];

(c) On this ground also, rule ought to be made absolute in

terms of prayer clause - (a) in the following petitions :

A.Y. 2013-2014 - WP No.2847 of 2021

A.Y. 2014-2015 - WP No.2597 of 2021

A.Y. 2015-2016 - WP No.2594 of 2021

A.Y. 2017-2018 - WP No.2595 of 2021

21 Assuming that respondent has jurisdiction to take proceedings

under Section 153C of the Act, whether assessments can be made in respect
of years beyond six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the
previous year in which the proceedings under Section 132 of the Act was
conducted?

(a) A plain reading of Section 153A (1)(b) of the Act shows

that respondent having jurisdiction under the said section is empowered to

assess or re-assess the total income of six years immediately preceding the

assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was

conducted and for the relevant assessment year or years. Explanation 1

below Section 153A of the Act defines the expression relevant assessment

10. WP No.7994 of 2023 dated 4.7.2023 (unreported)

Gauri Gaekwad
 49/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

years as “…….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 ”. In order

to make an assessment for assessment year 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 the search was

conducted, the 4th proviso to Section 153(A)(1) of the Act sets out certain

further conditions which are required to be fulfilled before a notice can be

issued for the relevant assessment years. Clause - (a) of the 4 th proviso

requires that the Assessing Officer must have in his possession books,

documents or evidence which reveal that income represented in the form of

an asset which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to

rupees fifty lakhs or more. Explanation 2 to Section 153A(1) of the Act sets

out an expanded definition of the word “asset” for the purposes of the

4th proviso. In the instant case, the satisfaction note refers to two items.

First, the loan account between petitioner and Hubtown Limited and the

alleged escapement is only in respect of the part thereof which is written off

during the year. That clearly, i.e., the writing-off of a bad debt cannot fall

within the ambit of “…. income, represented in the form of an asset…”.

Further, in view of the fact that this has been considered and allowed in the

Gauri Gaekwad
 50/50 WP-2595-2021 & ORS.doc

original assessment proceedings, the same cannot be said to be income

which has escaped assessment. Secondly, the other item referred to in the

satisfaction note, that is to say, trading in shares of Hubtown Limited has

been undertaken on the stock exchange, recorded in the books of account

of petitioner, and the resulting gain offered for tax and the amounts taxed

in the hands of petitioner. Finally, even in the impugned re-assessment

order for A.Y. 2017-2018 no addition has been made on this account;

(b) Since the write-off of a bad debt cannot be held to be an

asset, clause - (a) of the 4 th proviso to Section 153A(1) of the Act would bar

any assessment that is proposed to be made for the relevant assessment

year/years, i.e., Assessment Year 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014;

(c) Therefore, rule ought to be made absolute in terms of

prayer clause – (a) in the following petitions :

A.Y. 2011-2012 – WP No.2593 of 2021

A.Y. 2012-2013 – WP No.2598 of 2021

A.Y. 2013-2014 – WP No.2847 of 2021

22 All petitions disposed in terms of prayer clause – (a) therein.

(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Gauri Gaekwad
Signed by: Gauri A. Gaekwad
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/09/2023 17:40:26