Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Notices under Section 153C of Income Tax Act Unwarranted Without Specific Incriminating Material For Assessment Years: Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has quashed numerous notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asserting that such notices are untenable in the absence of specific incriminating material directly relating to the assessment years for which reopening was sought. The Court emphasized that a generic invocation of Section 153C for an entire block of ten years, without specific material linked to each year, is legally impermissible.

The judgment focused on the critical requirement for the existence of specific incriminating material directly relating to the assessment years in question to invoke Section 153C. It distinguished the provisions of Section 153A and 153C, noting that while Section 153A mandates issuance of notice post-search for six preceding years leading to abatement of pending assessments, Section 153C necessitates satisfaction regarding the impact of discovered material on total income determination before initiating proceedings.

The batch of writ petitions challenged notices issued under Section 153C for various Assessment Years (AYs), deeming them illegal due to the absence of specific incriminating material for the AYs proposed to be reopened.

Interpretation of Section 153C: The Court held that Section 153C necessitates a satisfaction that material found during search influences total income for specific AYs. Generic invocation for an entire block of ten years without specific material related to each year is impermissible.

Distinguishing Sections 153A and 153C: The procedural mandates and preconditions between these two sections are distinct. Section 153A involves automatic issuance of notice post-search for six preceding years, whereas Section 153C requires specific satisfaction of the impact of discovered material.

Application and Impact of Satisfaction Notes: The necessity for specificity in satisfaction notes was underscored. They must record reasons how material discovered during search influences total income for particular AYs.

The Court quashed the majority of impugned notices under Section 153C due to lack of specific incriminating material linked to the assessment years in question. Exceptions were made in two cases where satisfaction notes adequately specified relevant AYs.

Date of the decision is April 09, 2024.

Saksham Commodities Limited Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1), Delhi & Anr.", and the

Latest Legal News