The petitioner must utilize statutory remedies under the Income Tax Act, and the court will not entertain premature petitions challenging assessment notices.

ORDER :

Vivek Rusia, J.

Since the controversies involved in these writ petitions are identical in nature, with the joint request of the parties, they are analogously heard and decided by this common order. Facts of the Writ Petition No.37114 of 2024 are narrated hereunder: -

01. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice dated 15.12.2023 issued by the office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – Indore under Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961, whereby the petitioner has been called upon to prepare true and correct return of income tax for the Assessment Year 2014 – 15 in the prescribed format as per Rule 12 of the INCOME TAX RULES , 1962.

02. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Income Tax Department conducted a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the INCOME TAX ACT ,1961 on the premises of Praveen Kakkar & R.K. Miglani Group on 07.04.2019. In the aforesaid search and seizure, some incriminating materials relating to the present petitioner were found. The Assessing Officer, related to Praveen Kakkar & R.K. Miglani Group sent the said material to the concerned Assessing Officers related to the present petitioner. The Assessing Officer issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT dated 15.12.2023.

03. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid notice, demanding the incriminating materials for the relevant period found during the course of the search of the concerned third party's premises. Respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 22.10.2024 under Section 142(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT along with the details of certain alleged documents found during the course of search of aforesaid premises. The petitioner was not satisfied with the documents; therefore, he again sent a letter dated 06.11.2024 to respondent No.1 seeking details / information and the documents including a satisfaction note. Respondent No.1 supplied the aforesaid material and satisfaction notice.

04. According to the petitioner, the alleged documents and undated & unsigned satisfaction note written by the AO were supplied to him, according to him the notice under Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT for the Assessment Year – 2014 – 15 could not have been issued. Hence, instead of appearing before the authority for assessment / reassessment in respect of the relevant year, the petitioner chose to file this petition seeking quashment of said notice inter alia on the ground that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT depends of the circumstances; firstly that the incriminating material pertaining to the person for the relevant years found during the search of the concerned third party's premises; secondly the satisfaction notes in respect of the same have been prepared by the Assessing Officer of the concerned third party's premises during the course of assessment and the same was forwarded to the Assessing Officer of the person; and thirdly that upon receipt of such information / material with satisfaction notes, the Assessing Officer of a person other than search i.e. present petitioner arrived to the satisfaction that incriminating materials relate to the petitioner. The petitioner is also challenging the authority of respondent No.1 to issue a notice on the ground of limitation as provided under the proviso to Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT .

05. In support of the above ground, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax 14 v/s Jasjit Singh [S.L.P. (C) No.6644 of 2016] decided on 26.09.2023, in which the Apex Court has held that first proviso to sub-section (1) of the Section 153C of the Act read with the provisions of Section