2025 (3) TMI 155 - SCH - Income Tax

Proceedings u/s 153C - issuance of the notice was preceded by the drawl of a Satisfaction Note by the jurisdictional AO - importance of material recovered in the course of a search or a requisition made and a right to reassess u/s 153A and 153C - scope of Incriminating material. 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 - 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 u/s 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. HELD THAT - There is a delay of 185 155 97 190 186 and 171 days in filing the Special Leave Petitions respectively which have 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, with Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan presiding, heard the case where the Petitioner was represented by Mr. N Venkatraman, A.S.G., Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR, Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv., Mr. Ram Krishna Rao, Adv., Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv., Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv., Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv., and Mr. V C Bharathi, Adv. The Court noted a significant delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions, ranging from 97 to 190 days, without satisfactory explanation. Upon review, the Court found no merit in the petitions and dismissed them on both procedural delay and substantive grounds. Any pending applications were also disposed of.