2024 (12) TMI 1068 - SCH - Income Tax

Proceedings u/s 153C - issuance of the notice was preceded by the drawl of a Satisfaction Note by the jurisdictional AO - Distinction between Section 153A and Section 153C - Period of limitation - Nature of the incriminating material that may be obtained and the years forming part of the block which would merit being thrown open As decided by HC 2024 (4) TMI 461 - DELHI HIGH COURT abatement of the six AYs or the relevant assessment year would follow the formation of that opinion and satisfaction in that respect being reached. We come to the firm conclusion that the incriminating material which is spoken of would have to be identified with respect to the AY to which it relates or may be likely to impact before the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act. A material, document or asset recovered in the course of a search or on the basis of a requisition made would justify abatement of only those pending assessments or reopening of such concluded assessments to which alone it relates or is likely to have a bearing on the estimation of income. The mere existence of a power to assess or reassess the six AYs immediately preceding the AY corresponding to the year of search or the relevant assessment year would not justify a sweeping or indiscriminate invocation of Section 153C. The jurisdictional AO would have to firstly be satisfied that the material received is likely to have a bearing on or impact the total income of years or years which may form part of the block of six or ten AYs and thereafter proceed to place the assessee on notice under Section 153C. The power to undertake such an assessment would stand confined to those years to which the material may relate or is likely to influence. Absent any material that may either cast a doubt on the estimation of total income for a particular year or years, the AO would not be justified in invoking its powers conferred by Section 153C. It would only be consequent to such satisfaction being reached that a notice would be liable to be issued and thus resulting in the abatement of pending proceedings and reopening of concluded assessments. HELD THAT - As there is a delay of 124 and 127 days in filing the Special Leave Petitions respectively, which has not been satisfactorily explained. Even otherwise, we have gone through the Special Leave Petition and do not find any merit in the same. Special Leave Petitions are, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

Summary

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions due to delays of 124 and 127 days in filing, finding no merit in the petitions. Pending applications were disposed of.

Citation: TMI
Judges: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. B. PARDIWALA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
Petitioner's Counsel: Mr. S Dwarakanath, A.S.G. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Ram Krishna Rao , Adv