SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. Supehia, Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
Ms Khurana Engineering Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3) Ahmedabad – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 3993 of 2026
Decided On : 08-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Ms Vaibhavi K Parikh
For the Respondent: Mr.Varun K.Patel

For the ten-year limitation period under search-based reassessment, the assessment year of the search is included in the computation because the statute mandates reckoning from the end of the assessment year of the search, which is distinct from the six-year block that specifically excludes the search year.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 153A and 153C - Search and seizure - Reassessment proceedings - Limitation period - Statutory interpretation of the assessment block - Ten-year limit for reopening assessment - Whether the year of search should be included in the ten-year computation - Held, the phrase "from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted" mandates the inclusion of the search assessment year in the ten-year block computation, unlike the six-year block period, which specifies "immediately preceding" to exclude it. (Paras 11, 13, 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 13.4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a reassessment notice issued under the relevant income tax laws for the assessment year 2015-16, contending that the notice was time-barred. The search and seizure operation was initiated in the assessment year 2025-26. The department argued that the search year should be excluded from the computation of the ten-year block, while the petitioner urged that the specific legislative language necessitates the inclusion of the search year, thereby making the impugned notice expired by operation of law.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the legislature consciously used distinct language for the two types of assessment blocks. The six-year block is governed by the phrase "immediately preceding," which excludes the search year, while the ten-year block is governed by the phrase "from the end of the assessment year," which requires the inclusion of the search year in the reckoning. Giving full effect to this statutory distinction is mandatory to avoid rendering parts of the legislation redundant.

Issues: The main issue was whether the reassessment notice for the assessment year 2015-16 was issued outside the prescribed ten-year limitation window under the applicable statutory regime regarding search-based assessments.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory provisions prescribing different computational frameworks for six-year and ten-year blocks must be interpreted according to their explicit nomenclature; since the ten-year block is calculated from the end of the search assessment year, said year is included in the period, thus rendering a notice covering an assessment year beyond this threshold as barred by limitation.

Result: Petition allowed; notice quashed and set aside.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and facts of the search case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioner's contention regarding time-bar limitation for reopening assessments. (Para 5)
3. respondent's counterarguments on statutory interpretation and limitation periods. (Para 6 , 7)
4. statutory definitions and legislative framework for assessment years. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. court's ratio on including the search year in 10-year block computation. (Para 13)
6. final order quashing notice due to statutory limitation. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani appearing with Learned Advocate Ms. Vaibhavi K. Parikh for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondent.

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.

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

4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the notice dated 26.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) seeking to re-open income tax assessment of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2015-16 (for short “the assessment year under consideration”) by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Ahmedabad (for short “the respondent”).

4.1 The petitioner is a company and has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 30.10.2015 declaring total income at Rs.9,28,90,660/-. The petitioner is part of MSK Group which is engaged in the business of infrastructure development. The said MSK and Madhav Group of Gujarat including the petitioner were subjected to search action under Section 132 of the Act on 18.05.2024. The Respondent issued a notice dated 26.03.2025 under Section 148 of the Act for the year under consideration. It is stated therein that a search was initiated under Section 132 of the Act on 18.05.2024 in the case of the Petitioner or in the case of the person in respect of which the Petitioner is assessable under the Act. It was further stated that the Respondent is satisfied, with the approval of Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, that the books of accounts or documents, seized or requisitioned under section 132 or section 132A of the Act in the case of MSK and Madhav Group pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relate to the Petitioner or the person in respect of which, the Petitioner is assessable under the Act and hence, the notice dated 26.03.2025 is issued under Section 148 of the Act after obtaining prior approval of Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad. The Petitioner has challenged the said notice under Section 148 of the Act principally on the ground of limitation.

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar P. Hemani for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has acted illegally and without jurisdiction while issuing Notice under Section 148 of the Act as the same is barred by limitation. It was further contended that the impugned notice is time-barred under the statutory scheme governing search assessment. It was submitted that in the present case, search action in question was carried out on 18.05.2024 i.e. during the Financial Year 2024-25. Since the search under Section 132 of the Act was initiated on or after 1st April, 2021 but before 1st September, 2024, the provisions of Sections 147 to 151 of the Act as they stood immediately before the commencement of Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 shall apply as contemplated under Section 152(3) of the Act. Hence, relying upon Section 149 of the Act, it is contended that the Notice under Section 148 of the Act can be issued up to six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Further, relying upon the Section 153A of the Act, it is submitted that Notice under Section 153

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top