IMPORTANT POINT
The court held that notices under Section 153C are valid despite delays in recording satisfaction, as the extended assessment period allows for ten years from the previous year of the search.

JUDGMENT :

(Bhargav D. Karia, J.)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. B.S.Soparkar for the petitioner. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 06.11.2019 issued under section 153C of the Income Tax Act,1961 [for short ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2014-15.

3. The notice under section 153C of the Act was originally issued on 05.08.2019 for A.Y. 2011-12 to 2017-18. However, on 23.10.2019, the respondent withdrew the same and issued fresh notices for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2014-15 on 06.11.2019.

4.The petitioner, on receipt of the notices, vide letter dated 18.11.2019 requested the respondent assessing officer for documents relied upon by the respondent along with satisfaction recorded under section 153C of the Act. The respondents supplied satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person on 31.03.2018 as well as the satisfaction recorded by the respondent vide letter dated 25.11.2019. As per the satisfaction note, for initiation of the assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act, it is revealed that during the course of search at the office premises of M/s. Venus Infrastructure and Developers Pvt Ltd and Shri Ashok S. Vasvani for Venus Group on 10.03.2015, various loose papers, documents and digital data were seized and 11 documents pertaining to the petitioner were identified.

5. The respondent who is Assessing Officer of the petitioner, recorded satisfaction note on 23.10.2019 for initiation of the assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2014-15 in respect of each of the Assessment Year falling within six Assessment Years immediately preceding the Assessment Year relevant to previous year in which the search was conducted.

6. The respondent in the satisfaction note dated 23.10.2019 has recorded that from analysis of seized material and digital evidence it was gathered that the petitioner is one of the purchasers of the property in the project as stated in the registered deed which has been developed by Venus Group in which, cash has been paid to Venus Group in various financial years. The respondent analyzed the incriminating seized material at page No. 127 of the Annexure A-69 seized from the terrace of Crystal Arcade where the search was conducted and recorded that date mentioned on this page was in coded form. It was further recorded that there is clear mention of payment received in respect of the properties purchased by the petitioner and his family members reflecting the unaccounted cash receipts in the summary sheet of the unaccounted cash receipts from the project Venus Amadeus over and above the document price of Rs. 3,43,25,000/- paid during Financial Year 2010-11 for property bearing premises Nos. 5 & 6 of Ground Floor and during Financial Year 2011-12, an amount of Rs. 2 Crore was paid in cash. The respondent- Assessing Officer therefore, has arrived at a satisfaction on the basis of the incriminating seized material where it was noticed that the date and amount mentioned on the pages were coded which were related to the cash for Venus Amandeus Project and unit number was also mentioned on the same as well as cash vouchers were duly signed by the initials of Rajesh S. Vaswani and Narendra Panjwani. The respondent-Assessing Officer has therefore arrived at satisfaction that the information contained in the incriminating seized material relates to the petitioner which has bearing on the determination of the total income relevant to the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2014-15.

7. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notices under section 153C of the Act are time barred in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CCIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears reported in 362 ITR 673 (SC) read with CBDT Circular No. 24/2015. It was submitted that as per the decision of the Supreme Court as well as the Circular of the CBDT