Facts of the
Case
Forever Body Care Industries 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
purposes of post-search assessment proceedings.
The primary challenge was that no incriminating
material pertaining to the specific assessment years sought to be reopened had
been discovered during the search. Nevertheless, proceedings were initiated for
multiple preceding assessment years forming part of the statutory block period.
The petitions were heard as part of a large batch of connected matters
involving numerous 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 distinction between Sections 153A (searched person) and 153C
(other person).
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner contended that the assumption of jurisdiction under
Section 153C was illegal since no material relating to the relevant
assessment years had been found during the search.
- It was argued that discovery of material pertaining to a particular
year cannot justify reopening of all preceding years without a specific
nexus.
- The petitioner asserted that completed assessments can be disturbed
only if the seized material has a bearing on the determination of total
income for those years.
- It was also submitted that statutory requirements regarding recording and communication of satisfaction had not been properly complied with.
Respondent’s Arguments (Revenue)
- The Revenue contended that proceedings were validly initiated
pursuant to search operations and transfer of relevant material.
- It was submitted that the Assessing Officer had recorded the
requisite satisfaction for invoking Section 153C.
- The Department argued that once jurisdiction is properly assumed,
assessment of multiple years within the block period is permissible.
- It was further contended that the seized material had relevance to
the petitioner’s income.
Court Order / Findings
- Section 153C can be invoked only when seized material belonging to
or pertaining to the “other person” is discovered during the search.
- In respect of completed assessments, reassessment must be based on
incriminating material having a bearing on determination of income for the
specific assessment year.
- Material relating to one assessment year cannot automatically
justify reopening of all six preceding years without a clear nexus.
- Proper recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer is a
foundational requirement for assumption of jurisdiction.
Important Clarification
- Proceedings under Section 153C are not automatic merely because a
search has been conducted on 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 emphasizes the strict distinction between assessments
of searched persons under Section 153A and other persons under Section
153C.
Link to download the order – https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1772271421_FOREVERBODYCAREINDUSTRIESVsINCOMETAXOFFICERWARD341DELHIANR..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