Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G. S. KULKARNI, ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
Sejal Jewellary – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise common issues of law and fact, hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The question which falls for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent no. 3 was correct in law in issuing a notice to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “I.T. Act”) on the basis of a search action under section 132 of the I.T. Act, which is relevant to the entire group of these petitioners. The assessment years in question in all these cases are A.Y. 2012-13.
3. The learned counsel for the parties have argued Writ Petition No. 3057 of 2019 (Sejal Jewellery & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.) as the lead petition, hence we refer to the facts of this case.
4. Petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm (for convenience referred as ‘petitioner’) inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in gold and diamond jewellery. For the assessment year in question, petitioner filed its return of income on 28 September, 2012 declaring a total income of Rs.25,52,692/-. After about six years, on 4 October, 2018, a search action was taken agai
The court held that in cases of search under Section 132, the provisions of Section 153A apply mandatorily, overriding Section 147 and 148, unless incriminating material is found.
The court ruled that proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act are improper when material seized relates to a person other than the one searched, necessitating the application of Section 15....
The court held that a petitioner searched under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act cannot be treated as a non-searched person for proceedings under Section 153C, and thus impugned notices issued again....
A person may only be assessed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act if they are not the 'searched person'; procedural safeguards must precede assessment actions.
For invoking Section 153C, the petitioner must not be treated as a non-searched person; proper jurisdiction requires a satisfaction note linking seized documents to undisclosed income of another part....
The court ruled that assessment orders under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act are void if the petitioner was a searched person and no incriminating evidence was found linking them to potential undi....
Reassessment under sections 147/148 invalid if based on material seized from third-party search prior to 01.04.2021; section 153C mandatory, overriding general provisions.
Reassessment u/s 147 invalid when based solely on incriminating material seized from searched third party without AO of searched person recording satisfaction note; mandatory to proceed u/s 153C.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
