Facts of the
Case
Naresh Mittal 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 principal contention was that no incriminating
material pertaining to the specific assessment years sought to be reopened had
been discovered during the search. Despite this, reassessment proceedings were
initiated for several preceding assessment years forming part of the statutory
block period. The petitions were heard as part of a large batch of connected
matters involving multiple assessees raising similar jurisdictional challenges.
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 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
assessment year cannot justify reopening of other years without a direct
nexus.
- The petitioner asserted that completed assessments can be disturbed
only where seized material has a bearing on determination of total income
for those years.
- It was further contended that statutory requirements regarding
recording of satisfaction had not been properly complied with.
Respondent’s Arguments (Revenue)
- The Revenue submitted that proceedings were validly initiated
pursuant to search operations and transfer of relevant material.
- It was contended 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 statutory block period is
permissible.
- It was further submitted 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 justify reopening
of all preceding years without a specific 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 underscores the strict distinction between assessments
of searched persons under Section 153A and other persons under Section
153C of the Act.
Link to
download the order – https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1772274796_NARESHMITTALVsINCOMETAXOFFICERWARD437DELHIORS..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