Bhupinder v. Income Ta

Page 1 of 5 111+ 107, 108 IN THCHANDIGARB AND HARYANA AT H CWP-25294-2024(O&M)Along withCWP-25252-2024(O&M)CWP-25256-2024(O&M)CWP-25280-2024(O&M)CWP-25287-2024(O&M)CWP-25316-2024(O&M)CWP-26261-2024 (O&M)Date of Decision: 06.11.2024 BHUPINDER . . . . Petitioner Vs. INCOME TA . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMAJAY VASHISTH **** Present: MeMr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for tMr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for t Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. StandingMr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Cofor the respondents/Revenue. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Cofor the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1.The petitioner by way of present petitions assails the notices dated30.03.2024 issued to him under section 153C of the Income Tax Act,1961 (‘the Act’) and the notices dated 23.08.2024 under section 142(1) ofthe Act on the ground that the same have30.03.2024 issued to him under section 153C of the Income Tax Act,1961 (‘the Act’) and the notices dated 23.08.2024 under section 142(1) ofthe Act on the ground that the same have2.Learned counsel for the petitioner subm been issued without jurisdiction.its that a search under section132(1) 28.01.2021 and the assessmentproceedof the Act was conducted on ings were completed under section 158BC (now section 153A) of132(1) 28.01.2021 and the assessmentproceedof the Act was conducted on ings were completed under section 158BC (now section 153A) of CWP-25294-202[4 (O&M)] Page 2 of 5 the Act against the searched person, and after more than one year, theproceedings have been initiated against the petitioner on 30.03.2024 byissuing notices under section 153C of the 3.Learned counsel relies on the circular N5wherein the Ministry of Finance issued directions in tune with thejudgment passed in Commissioner of Income-tax III vs. CalcuttaKnitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC), relating to recording of satisfactionnote under section 158BD/153C of the Awherein the Ministry of Finance issued directions in tune with thejudgment passed in Commissioner of Income-tax III vs. CalcuttaKnitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC), relating to recording of satisfactionnote under section 158BD/153C of the A 4.Learned counsel submits that as per the seHon’ble Supreme Court, the satisfaction could be prepared for any otherperson at any of the following stages: Hon’ble Supreme Court, the satisfaction could be prepared for any otherperson at any of the following stages: “(a) at the time of or alonproceedings against the searched158BC of the Act; or (b) in the course of the aunder section 158BC of the Act; or (c) immediately after the aare completed under section 158searched person.” 5.Learned counsel submits that as the satisfaction note was prepared by theAO on 31.10.2023, which is more than one year after the assessmentproceedings against the concerned searched person were completed, thesame is highly belated and is not in tune with the directions issued by theSupreme Court, and such proceedingsought not had been pressed asagainst the petitioner and the same deserv 6.Learned counsel has further argued tninitiated for Assessment Year 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 in CWP-initiated for Assessment Year 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 in CWP- CWP-25294-202[4 (O&M)] Page 3 of 5 25316-2CWP-25294-2024 respectivelywhich f024, CWP-26261-2024, and all beyond the period of six years, and therefore the proceedingsought not be allowed to be continued. He relies on judgment passed bythe Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Inxome-tax vs. JasjitSingh (2023) 458 ITR 43 (SC). 6.Learned counsel has further argued tninitiated for Assessment Year 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 in CWP-initiated for Assessment Year 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 in CWP- CWP-25294-202[4 (O&M)] Page 3 of 5 25316-2CWP-25294-2024 respectivelywhich f024, CWP-26261-2024, and all beyond the period of six years, and therefore the proceedingsought not be allowed to be continued. He relies on judgment passed bythe Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Inxome-tax vs. JasjitSingh (2023) 458 ITR 43 (SC). 7.With reions, we have examined the caseof the and find that the petitioner hadsubmittpetitioner in CWP-25294-2024 ed an objection relating to the notice under section 153C of theAct before the concerned Assessing Officer (AO) wherein he has takenthe objection relating to delay in issuance of notice under section 153C ofthe Act, and of satisfaction note being prepared after a period of one year.The other objection relating to the period of limitation beyond six yearshas not been taken by the petitioner, and the concerned authority hastherefore passed an order addressing to his objections relating to the delayin issuing of notice after the satisfaction note was prepared. 8.We finconducted on 28.01.2021, theassessmd that after the search was ent proceedings were completed in September, 2022 undersection 158BC (now section 153A) of the Act against the searchedperson. The concerned Assessing Officer (AO) of the said searchedperson drew a satisfaction note of initiating proceedings on the basis ofthe docpetitioner on 07.06.2023 andtransmiuments seized as against the tted the documents to the concerned AO who also drew hissatisfaction note on 31.10.2023, whereafter the notice was issued to thepetitioner under section 153C of the Act on 30.03.2024. Thus, we findthat immediately after the assessment proceedings were completed CWP-25294-202[4 (O&M)] Page 4 of 5 against the searched person under section 153A of the Act, within ninemonths, the satisfaction notice was prepared by the concerned AO. Thewords ‘immediately after the assessment proceedings’ as mentioned inthe observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and noted in the circularNo.24/2015 issued on 31.12.2015 cannot be read to mean that the samehas to be done within a day or two or within a particular period. What isimportant is that before AO issues a satisfaction note, he must look intoall the documents and pass a reasoned order. For that purpose,considering various aspects, certain time should be allowed to be grantedto the authorities too, and it cannot be a m 9.In view thereto, we do not agree that thesatisfaction note and proceeding further asatisfaction note and proceeding further a 10.The other argument raised by learnedhststregard to the 1 proviso to section 153C of the Act relating to the periodof six years is concerned, we find that 1st proviso to section 153C reads asunder:of six years is concerned, we find that 1st proviso to section 153C reads asunder: r“Provided that in case of eference to the date of initiatiosection 132 or making of requisitiothe second proviso to sub-section (be construed as reference to the datof account or documents or assetssuch other person, the n of the search under n under section 132A in 1) of section 153A shall e of receiving the books seized or requisitioned bjurisdiction over such oy the Assessing Officer having ther person.” 11.Thus, there are four different circumstances which are to be taken intoconsideration for calculation of the period. Since the petitioner has not CWP-25294-202[4 (O&M)] Page 5 of 5 taken any such objection before the concerned AO, we leave it open forthe petitioner to raise the said objection at the relevant time as and when,if so required, and we need not delve on the said issue as the petitionerhimselfefore the concerned AO, and theAO had did not take up the said issue b no opportunity to pass any order 11.Thus, there are four different circumstances which are to be taken intoconsideration for calculation of the period. Since the petitioner has not CWP-25294-202[4 (O&M)] Page 5 of 5 taken any such objection before the concerned AO, we leave it open forthe petitioner to raise the said objection at the relevant time as and when,if so required, and we need not delve on the said issue as the petitionerhimselfefore the concerned AO, and theAO had did not take up the said issue b no opportunity to pass any order 12.We further observe that the proceedingtare comprehensive in nature, and the person against whom notice isissued, ought to take all the objections and wait for a final decision in thematter. in any manner of such a naturewhich cIt cannot be said that they are an affect the day to day functioning of the petitioner and prejudicehim. are comprehensive in nature, and the person against whom notice isissued, ought to take all the objections and wait for a final decision in thematter. in any manner of such a naturewhich cIt cannot be said that they are an affect the day to day functioning of the petitioner and prejudicehim. 13.The writ petition, in our opinion, at this stage would therefore not berequired to be entertained except on jurisdictional issue. Since we havenoted that there is no jurisdictional error, we need not further delve withthe petirequired to be entertained except on jurisdictional issue. Since we havenoted that there is no jurisdictional error, we need not further delve withthe peti 14.Thus, tdismissed. 15.All pending applications also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE November 06, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No2. Whether reportable? Yes/No