THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 14.08.2014

+

WP (C) No.414 of 2014 & CM No.822 of 2014

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED…

Petitioner

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX & ANR

… Respondents

WITH

WP (C) No.566 of 2014 & CM No.1149 of 2014

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED…

Petitioner

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX & ANR

… Respondents

AND

+

WP (C) No.567 of 2014 & CM No.1150 of 2014

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED…

Petitioner

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX & ANR

… Respondents

AND

+

WP (C) No.572 of 2014 & CM No.1156 of 2014

2014:DHC:3926-DB

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED…

Petitioner

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX & ANR

… Respondents

AND

+

WP (C) No.573 of 2014 & CM No.1157 of 2014

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED…

Petitioner

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX & ANR

… Respondents

AND

+

WP (C) No.574 of 2014 & CM No.1158 of 2014

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED…

Petitioner

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX & ANR

... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner

: Mr Deepak Chopra, Ms Rashi Khanna &

Mr Harpreet Ajmani, Advs.

For the Respondents : Mr Rohit Madan, Adv.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

JUDGMENT

2014:DHC:3926-DB

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)

1.

These six (6) writ petitions raise a common issue and therefore the

same are being decided together. The relevant Assessment Years are

2006-2007 to 2011-2012. By way of these writ petitions the petitioner

(PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited) has sought the quashing of the

notices issued on 02.08.2013 under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act,

1961 (hereinafter referred to as the „said Act‟).

2.

A search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the said

Act was conducted on 27.03.2012 on the Jaipuria Group. It is the case of

the Revenue that during the said operation certain documents “belonging”

to the petitioner were found. Consequently, the Assessing Officer of the

Jaipuria Group prepared a Satisfaction Note dated 29.07.2013 to the

effect that the documents mentioned therein belonged to the petitioner. It

is thereafter that the Satisfaction Note as well as the said documents were

symbolically handed over to the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. We

use the expression “symbolically handed over” because of the fact that

the Assessing Officer of the Jaipuria Group and the Assessing of the

petitioner was one and the same person. It is thereafter that the said

Assessing Officer issued notices to the petitioner, all dated 02.08.2013,

2014:DHC:3926-DB

under Section 153C of the said Act seeking to reopen the assessments of

the petitioner for the years 2006-2007 to 2011-2012 and to follow the

procedure prescribed under Section 153A of the said Act.

3.

In response to the said notices, the petitioner submitted its

objections on 09.10.2013. Those objections were rejected by an order

dated 02.12.2013 passed by the Assessing Officer. Pursuant thereto, the

petitioner, being aggrieved by the action taken and proposed to be taken

against the petitioner, has filed these writ petitions seeking the quashing

of the said notices under Section 153C of the said Act.

4.

Before we examine these writ petitions in detail it would be

pertinent to point out that recently in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, WP (C) No.415/2014 and

other connected matters, this court had occasion to examine the very

provisions which are under consideration in the matters before us. In the

judgement delivered on 07.08.2014 in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd.

(supra), after examining the provisions of Sections 153C, 132(4A)(i) &

292C(1)(i) of the said Act, this Court had observed as under:

“6. On a plain reading of Section 153C, it