Dr. Manas Shankar Ray, Mr. Shourendu Ray, Ms. Neelu Mohan, Mr. Anshul Gondale & Mr. Vitsala Poddar, Advs v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(3) & Anr

$~77 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 2066/2024 & CM APPL. 8604/2024 (Interim Relief) VIKAS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Manas Shankar Ray, Mr. Dr. Manas Shankar Ray, Mr. Shourendu Ray, Ms. Neelu Mohan, Mr. Anshul Gondale & Mr. Vitsala Poddar, Advs. versus % THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-26(3) & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Ruchiv Bhatia, SSC with Mr Anant Mann, JSC. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R22.05.2024 1.This writ petition has been preferred against the impugned notice dated 12 July 2022 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] for Assessment Year [“AY”] 2014-15 and all consequential proceedings. 2.Bearing in mind the undisputed fact that the Satisfaction Note recorded by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer [“AO”] of the petitioner was dated 12 July 2022, it is ex facie evident that the income which is alleged to have escaped assessment for the “relevant assessment year” does not exceed INR 50 lakhs, thereby not fulfilling the threshold requirement as prescribed by the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A. 3.The issue in any case stands answered and covered in favour of the writ petitioner in light of the judgment rendered in Principal –Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd [2024 SCC Online Del 2439]. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid decision read as under:- ““G. Insofar as the thresholds put in place by virtue of the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A are concerned and the argument of the writ petitioners of the condition of INR 50 lakhs being an unwavering precondition, we find ourselves unable to sustain that submission bearing in mind the indubitable fact that proceedings for search assessment commence upon the issuance of a notice and the AO at that stage having really not had the occasion to undertake a detailed or in depth examination of the evidence collected or come to a definitive opinion with respect to the total income which may have escaped assessment.Since the computation and assessment of income that is likely to have escaped assessment would at this stage be provisional, it would be incorrect to strike down initiation of action on a mere ex facie examination of the Satisfaction Note. We also in this regard bear in mind the Fourth “”Proviso using the expression amounts to or is likely to amount.The usage of the phrase “likely to” is indicative of the Legislature being conscious of the provisional character of the opinion that the AO may have formed at that stage. H.However, and at the same time, even if the identified asset at that stage be quantified as less than INR 50 lakhs, the AO must for reasons to be duly recorded, be of the opinion that the ultimate computation of escaped income is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs. The aforesaid satisfaction would have to be based on an assessment of the material gathered and the potentiality of the same being indicative of the escaped assessment exceeding INR 50 lakhs. The formation of opinion in this respect would have to be based not on mere ipse dixit but reflective of a fair assessment of the quantum of income likely to have escaped assessment as distinct from mere speculation and conjecture. I.We further hold that since the precondition of INR 50 lakhs or more constitutes a sine qua non for initiating action for the extended ten year block, the aforesaid satisfaction and the reasons in support thereof would have to borne out from the Satisfaction Note itself. We are also of the opinion that the precondition of INR 50 lakhs is not liable to be viewed as being the qualifying criteria for each “relevant assessment year” that may be thrown open and that the said condition would stand satisfied if the escaped income cumulatively or in the aggregate meets the minimum benchmark of INR 50 lakhs.” 4.Accordingly, and for reasons assigned in our decision in Ojjus Medicare Private Limited, while we allow the instant writ I.We further hold that since the precondition of INR 50 lakhs or more constitutes a sine qua non for initiating action for the extended ten year block, the aforesaid satisfaction and the reasons in support thereof would have to borne out from the Satisfaction Note itself. We are also of the opinion that the precondition of INR 50 lakhs is not liable to be viewed as being the qualifying criteria for each “relevant assessment year” that may be thrown open and that the said condition would stand satisfied if the escaped income cumulatively or in the aggregate meets the minimum benchmark of INR 50 lakhs.” 4.Accordingly, and for reasons assigned in our decision in Ojjus Medicare Private Limited, while we allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned notice issued under Section 153C of the Act dated 12 July 2022 insofar as it relates to AY 2014-15, we leave it open to the AO to examine the issue afresh bearing in mind the observations appearing in para 3 above.5.In case the AO be of the opinion that the income alleged to have escaped assessment is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs in the “relevant assessment year”, it would be open to it to draw proceedings afresh, if otherwise permissible in law. YASHWANT VARMA, J MAY 22, 2024/kk AMIT BANSAL, J