IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9176 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI ================================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No yes ==========================================================

SWAGAT INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), AHMEDABAD ================================================================

Appearance:

MR TUSHAR HEMANI with MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 16/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. Since a very short issue is involved, the matter is taken up for final hearing. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

2. RULE. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent authority.

3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned Assessment Order dated 30.04.2024 as well as the demand Notice dated 30.04.2024 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

4. At the outset learned senior advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani appearing for the petitioner has submitted that proceedings under Section 153(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’) govern the proceedings under Section 153(C) of the IT Act. In the present case, the impugned assessment order passed by the respondent is clearly barred by limitation and hence, without any jurisdiction.

4.1 It is contended that in the present case the search which was undertaken in the case of a third party namely H.N.Safal Group on 04.09.2013, has culminated into re-assessment of tax of the present petitioner. It is submitted that relevant materials were gathered during the search and the satisfaction note was also drawn by the Assessing Officer of the person searched, which was received by the respondent authority on 28.08.2017 in the Financial Year 2017-18 / Assessment Year 2018-19 and as per the first proviso under Section 153B of the IT Act, the last date of framing the assessment was on 31.12.2018. However, it is submitted that since the matter was sub judice before this Court and interim relief was granted in favour of present petitioner on 20.12.2018, whereby the notice under Section 153(C) was challenged, the limitation period of eleven days for framing the assessment was remaining, as on the date of grant of such interim relief.

4.2 It is submitted that the issue came to be settled in favour of the Income Tax Department by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 06.04.2023 passed in the case of ITO vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, (2023) 453 ITR 417 (SC). Pursuant to the said decision, the respondent was again authorised to frame the assessment in the case of the present petitioner. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Section 153 B of the IT Act, if the remaining period of limitation is less than sixty days, the same stands extended for another sixty days for the purpose of undertaking the assessment proceedings. It is submitted that in the present case, the assessment order was supposed to have been passed on 05.06.2023, however, the same has been passed on 30.04.2024, as the period is extended for a period of sixty days. While referring to the contents of the affidavit-in-reply dated 21.04.2025, it is submitted that the order of the Supreme Court dated 06.04.2023 was received by the office of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 16.05.2023 and even then also the same would be beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. It is submitted that the respondent authority cannot place reliance on the provisions of Sect