2025 (1) TMI 1241 - SCH - Income Tax

Proceedings u/s 153C - period of limitation - issuance of the notice was preceded by the drawl of a Satisfaction Note by the jurisdictional AO - Distinction between Section 153A and Section 153C - Delay filing SLP - As decided by HC abatement of the six AYs or the relevant assessment year u/s 153C would follow the formation of opinion and satisfaction being reached that the material received is likely to impact the computation of income for a particular AY or AYs that may form part of the block of ten AYs . Invocation of Section 153C in respect of AYs for which no incriminating material had been gathered or obtained. Satisfaction Notes also fail to record any reasons as to how the material discovered and pertaining to a particular AY is likely to have a bearing on the determination of the total income for the year which is sought to be abated or reopened in terms of the impugned notices. HELD THAT - There is a delay of 162 and 145 days respectively in filing the Special Leave Petitions which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioners - Revenue. Even otherwise we see no reason to interfere with the common impugned orders passed by the High Court. Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

Summary

The Supreme Court, presided over by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. B. PARDIWALA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN, heard arguments from the Additional Solicitor General representing the petitioners, the Revenue. The Court noted a "gross delay of 162 and 145 days respectively" in filing the Special Leave Petitions, which the petitioners failed to satisfactorily explain. The Court found "no reason to interfere with the common impugned orders passed by the High Court." Consequently, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed "on the ground of delay as well as on merits," and any pending applications were also disposed of.