Facts of the
Case
Ashutosh Agarwal filed writ petitions before the
Delhi High Court challenging notices issued under Section 153C of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 pursuant to search and seizure operations conducted on another
person. The petitioner was treated as an “other person” for the purpose of
post-search assessment proceedings.
The principal contention was that no incriminating
material pertaining to the specific assessment years sought to be reopened had
been discovered during the course of the search. Despite this, reassessment
proceedings were initiated for several preceding assessment years falling
within the statutory block period. The petitions formed part of a large batch
of connected matters involving multiple assessees raising similar issues.
Issues Involved
- Whether proceedings under Section 153C can be initiated against a
non-searched person without assessment-year-specific incriminating
material discovered during search.
- Whether completed assessments for earlier years can be reopened in
the absence of such material.
- What constitutes valid jurisdictional satisfaction for invoking
Section 153C.
- The legal distinction between Sections 153A (searched person) and
153C (other person).
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner contended that assumption of jurisdiction under
Section 153C was illegal in the absence of incriminating material relating
to the specific assessment years proposed to be reassessed.
- It was argued that discovery of material pertaining to one year
cannot justify reopening of other years without a direct nexus.
- The petitioner asserted that completed assessments can be disturbed
only where material found during the search has a bearing on determination
of total income for those years.
- It was further contended that statutory requirements regarding
recording and communication of satisfaction had not been properly
fulfilled.
Respondent’s Arguments (Revenue)
- The Revenue submitted that proceedings were validly initiated
pursuant to search operations and transfer of material relating to the
petitioner.
- It was contended that the Assessing Officer had recorded the
requisite satisfaction for invoking Section 153C.
- The Department argued that once jurisdiction is validly assumed,
assessment of multiple years within the block period is permissible.
- It was further submitted that the seized material had relevance to
the petitioner’s income and justified initiation of proceedings.
Court Order / Findings
- Section 153C can be invoked only where seized material belonging to
or pertaining to the “other person” is found during the search.
- For completed assessments, reassessment must be based on
incriminating material having a bearing on determination of income for the
relevant assessment year.
- Mere existence of material relating to some period cannot justify
reopening of all preceding years without a specific nexus.
- Proper recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer is a
foundational jurisdictional requirement.
Important Clarification
- Proceedings under Section 153C are not automatic upon search of
another person.
- Jurisdiction over a non-searched person arises only where seized
material specifically relates to that person and the relevant assessment
years.
- Reopening of completed assessments requires incriminating material
with a direct nexus to determination of income for those years.
- The judgment reinforces the strict distinction between assessments
under Sections 153A and 153C of the Act.
Link to download the order – https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1772271332_ASHUTOSHAGARWALVsASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAXCENTRALCIRCLE28DELHIANDORS..pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment