> v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Circle27, Delhi & Anr

$~58 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 3506/2025 & CM APPL. 16388/2025CAROL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Mr. ShivamYadav,Ms.AnanyaKapoor,Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE27, DELHI & ANR......RespondentsThrough:MrGauravGupta,SSC,MrShivendra Singh, Mr Yojit Pareek,JSCsandMsPrakritiRastogi,Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R %15.04.2025 1.Though the matter was scheduled for hearing on 14.04.2025, it wasdeclared a holiday on account of the birthday of Dr B R Ambedkar andtherefore, the matter has been taken up today in view of the NotificationNo.10/G-4/Genl-I/DHC dated 07.04.2025, issued by this court. 2.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning thenotice dated 19.12.2023 [impugned notice] issued under Section 153C ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of the Assessment Year 2018-19 as well as the proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugnednotice. 3.It is pointed out that the petitioner [Assessee] had filed its return ofincome for the AY 2018-19 on 27.10.2018. Thereafter, on 24.03.2022 theAssessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and called upon the petitioner to show cause why the assessment for therelevant assessment year not be opened on the basis of theinformation as available with the AO. Thereafter, pursuant to the said notice,an order dated 25.04.2022 was passed under Section 148A(d) of the Actholding that it was a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of theAct. Whilst, the said proceedings were pending, on 20.07.2022, search andseizure operation was carried out in the case of SMC Group. Apparently,certain material was found during those proceedings which had a bearing onthe income of the Assessee. Accordingly, a notice under Section 153C of theAct was issued. 4.As noted above, the Assessee seeks to challenge the proceedingsinitiated pursuant to the said notice. The satisfaction note recorded by theAO of the searched entity indicates that it was found that the bank accountof the Assessee for Financial Year 2014-15 contained certain entriesaggregating to a sum of ₹1,27,00,000/-. Thereafter, the AO exercising jurisdiction in the case of Assessee also recorded his satisfaction that theinformation had a bearing on the assessment of the income of the Assessee. 5.It is noted from the above, that there is no information available,which would remotely suggest that the income of the Assessee for thefinancial year relevant to AY 2018-19 had escaped assessment. Asmentioned in the satisfaction note, the information pertained to the FY 2014-15. Thus, there is no incriminating material on the basis of which theassessment for the AY 2018-19 could be reopened under Section 153C ofthe Act. 6.The question whether the notice under Section 153C of the Act couldbe issued in respect of the assessment year for which no incriminating material is found during the search conducted on another person, is nolonger res integra. The said issue is covered by the earlier decision of thiscourt in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III v. Kabul Chawla :Neutral Citation : 2015:DHC:7044-DB; decision of the Gujarat High Court inPr. CIT v. Saumya Constructions (P) Limited :2016 SCC Online Guj9976 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell Private Ltd : (2024) 2 SCC433. 7.Concededly, a similar issue was also considered by this court inSaksham Commodities Limited v. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1), Delhi& Another : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:2836-DB. The Special LeavePetition [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.51947/2024] against thesaid decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.12.2024. 8.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugnednotice dated 19.12.2023 in respect of the AY 2018-19 and proceedingsinitiated pursuant thereto are set aside. inPr. CIT v. Saumya Constructions (P) Limited :2016 SCC Online Guj9976 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell Private Ltd : (2024) 2 SCC433. 7.Concededly, a similar issue was also considered by this court inSaksham Commodities Limited v. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1), Delhi& Another : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:2836-DB. The Special LeavePetition [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.51947/2024] against thesaid decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.12.2024. 8.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugnednotice dated 19.12.2023 in respect of the AY 2018-19 and proceedingsinitiated pursuant thereto are set aside. 9.The petition is disposed of in the above terms. The pendingapplication is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 15, 2025 M TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any