For the ten-year block assessment under the relevant tax statute, the search assessment year must be included in the calculation of the block period. The linguistic distinction between 'immediately preceding' (six years) and 'from the end of the assessment year' (ten years) necessitates this inclusion.

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

√

==========================================================

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani appearing with Learned Advocate Ms. Vaibhavi K. Parikh for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, for the respondents.

2. Having regard to the controversy involved, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Rule returnable forthwith.

3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 09.07.2021 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 (hereinafter referred to as “the assessment year under consideration” for short) by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(2), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent” for short). The petitioner has also challenged the assessment order dated 20.02.2026 passed under Section 144 read with Section 153C read with Section 250 of the Act and demand notice dated 20.02.2026 issued under Section 156 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

3.1 The petitioner is an individual and it is the case of the petitioner that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 06.03.2018 in the case of third parties (i.e. Satyam, Sangani, Shaligram Group Companies). During the course of such search action, residential premise of one Mr. Viral K. Patel, the Accountant of the company, was also covered. It is the case of the petitioner that there was an allegation by the Respondent that on verification of digital data found during the course of search it was revealed that the petitioner had purchased a unit in a project namely “Satyam Sentossa Greenland Phase A-B” and the property was registered on 31.12.2009 for Rs. 89,01,000/- out of which, Rs. 63,50,000/- has been paid in cash.

3.2 Thereafter, the satisfaction note recorded by the “Assessing Officer of the person searched” as well as satisfaction note recorded by “Assessing Officer of the petitioner” were prepared and supplied. The satisfaction notes broadly assert that the petitioner purchased a property which was registered on 31.12.2009 for Rs. 89,01,000/- out of which, Rs. 63,50,000/- has been paid in cash and that the digital data seized from the searched person contains information “having bearing” on determination of income of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

3.3 The petitioner vide communication dated 12.01.2026 raised objections against the initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Act for the assessment year under consideration and requested the respondent to drop the proceedings. The respondent vide order dated 02.02.2026 disposed off the objections holding the proceedings under section 153C of the Act to be justified. The respondents thereafter passed the impugned assessment order dated 20.02.2026 framing assessment pursuant to the impugned notice making addition to the tune of Rs. 63,50,000/- for the assessment year 2010-11 which in turn resulted into demand of Rs. 70,52,650/-.

4. The Petitioner has challenged the said notice and assessment order under section 153C of the Act principally on the ground of limitation.

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar P. Hemani for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have acted illegally and without jurisdiction while issuing Notice and passing Assessme