Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bhupinder Singh Kapur vs Income Tax Officer And Another on 6 November, 2024

Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144861-DB




CWP-25294-2024
          2024 (O&M)

                                   Page 1 of 5

111+ 107,, 108, 109, 110, 112 and 113

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                      CWP-25294-2024(O&M)
                                                                  Along with
                                                      CWP-25252-2024(O&M)
                                                      CWP-25256-2024(O&M)
                                                      CWP-25280-2024(O&M)
                                                      CWP-25287-2024(O&M)
                                                      CWP-25316-2024(O&M)
                                                      CWP-26261-2024 (O&M)
                                                  Date of Decision: 06.11.2024
                                                                         .2024
BHUPINDER SINGH KAPUR
                                                                 . . . . Petitioner
                                       Vs.

INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER
                                                              . . . . Respondentss
                               ****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
                               ****
Present: Mr Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate with
         Mr.
         Mr. Nikhil Goyal,
                    Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner
                                            petitioner(s).
         Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel with
         Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel
         for the respondents/Revenue.
                                ****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. The petitioner by way of present petition petitions assails the notices dated

30.03.2024 issued to him under section 153C of the Income Tax Act,

1961 ('the Act') and the notices notice dated 23.08.2024 under section 142(1) of

the Act on the ground that the same have been issued without jurisdiction.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a search under section

132(1) of the Act was conducted on 28.01.2021 and the assessment

proceedings ceedings were completed under section 158BC (now section 153A) of

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144861-DB

CWP-25294-2024 2024 (O&M)

the Act against the searched person, and after more than one year, the

proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner on 30.03.2024 by

issuing notices notice under section 153C of the Act.

3. Learned counsel relies on the circular No.24/2015 issued on 31.12.2015

wherein the Ministry of Finance issued directions in tune with the

judgment passed in Commissioner of Income Income-tax tax III vs. Calcutta

Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC), (SC), relating to recordi recording ng of satisfaction

note under section 158BD/153C of the Act.

4. Learned counsel submits that as per the said circular and directions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, the satisfaction could be prepared for any other

person at any of the following stages:

"(a) at the time of or along with the initiation of proceedings against the searched person under section 158BC of the Act; or

(b) in the course of the assessment proceedings under section 158BC of the Act; or

(c) immediately after the assessment proceedings are completed under section 158BC of the Act of the searched person."

5. Learned counsel submits that as the satisfaction note was prepared by the

AO on 31.10.2023, which is more than one year after the assessment

proceedings against the concerned searched searched person were completed, the

same is highly belated and is not in tune with the directions issued by the

Supreme Court, and such proceedings ought not had been pressed as

against the petitioner and the same deserve to be withdrawn.

6. Learned counsel has has further argued that the proceedings have been

initiated for Assessment Year 2015-16, 2015 16, 2016 2016-17, 2017-18 in CWP--

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144861-DB

CWP-25294-2024 2024 (O&M)

25316-2024 2024, CWP-26261-2024,, and CWP-25294-2024 respectively

which fall beyond the period of six years, and therefore the proceedings

ought not be allowed to be continued. He relies on judgment passed by

the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Inxome Inxome-tax tax vs. Jasjit

Singh (2023) 458 ITR 43 (SC).

7. With regard to the aforesaid two objections, we have examined the case

of the petitioner in CWP-25294-2024 and find that the petitioner had

submitted an objection relating to the notice under section 153C of the

Act before the concerned Assessing Officer ((AO) wherein he has taken

the objection relating to delay in issuance of notice under section 153C of

the Act, and of satisfaction note being prepared after a period of one year.

The other objection relating to the period of limitation beyond six years

has not been taken by the petitioner, and the concerned authority has

therefore passed an order addressing to his objections relating to the delay

in issuing of notice after the satisfaction note was prepared.

8. We find that after the search was conducted on 28.01.2021, the

assessment proceedings were completed in September, 2022 under

section 158BC (now (now section 153A) of the Act against the searched

person.. The concerned Assessing Officer (AO) of the said searched

person drew a satisfaction note of initiating proceedings on the basis of

the documents seized as against the petitioner on 07.06.2023 and

transmitted ansmitted the documents to the concerned AO who also drew his

satisfaction note on 31.10.2023, whereafter the notice was issued to the

petitioner under section 153C of the Act on 30.03.2024. Thus, we find

that immediately after the assessment proceedings w were ere completed

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144861-DB

CWP-25294-2024 2024 (O&M)

against the searched person under section 153A of the Act, within nine

months, the satisfaction notice was prepared by the concerned AO. The

words 'immediately after the assessment proceedings' as mentioned in

the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and noted in the circular

No.24/2015 issued on 31.12.2015 cannot be read to mean that the same

has to be done within a day or two or within a particular period. What is

important is that before AO issues a satisfaction note, he must look into

all the documents and pass a reasoned order. For that purpose,

considering various aspects, certain time should be allowed to be granted

to the authorities too, and it cannot be a mechanical process.

9. In view thereto, we do not agree that there is any dela delay y in preparing the

satisfaction note and proceeding further against the petitioner.

10. The other argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with

regard to the 1st proviso to section 153C of the Act relating to the period

of six years is concerned, we find that 1st proviso to section 153C reads as

under:

"Provided Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to sub-section sub (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having juris jurisdiction over such other person."

11. Thus, there are four different circumstances circumstances which are to be taken into

consideration for calculation of the period. Since the petitioner has not

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144861-DB

CWP-25294-2024 2024 (O&M)

taken any such objection before the concerned AO, we leave it open for

the petitioner to raise the said objection at the relevant time as and when when,,

if so required, and we need not delve on the said issue as the petitioner

himself did not take up the said issue before the concerned AO, and the

AO had no opportunity to pass any order on the said aspect.

12. We further observe that the proceedings under se section ction 153C of the Act

are comprehensive in nature, nature and the person against whom notice is