Clear Channel India Private Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court considered a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a notice dated 30 March 2025 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2016–17.
The petitioner, a company engaged in the advertising business, challenged the validity of the notice arising from search and seizure operations conducted under Section 132 of the Act. A search was carried out on 3 February 2021 in the case of two individuals and another search was conducted on 6 February 2021 at the residential premises of another person. Based on material allegedly seized during the latter search, the Assessing Officer of the searched person recorded a satisfaction note on 27 June 2024. Following this, the impugned notice under Section 153C was issued to the petitioner on 30 March 2025.
The Court considered two primary issues: whether the proceedings were barred by limitation due to delay in recording the satisfaction note and whether the satisfaction note was invalid because it lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN).
On the first issue, the petitioner argued that the satisfaction note was recorded long after completion of the assessment of the searched person. The search had concluded in February 2021 and the time limit for completing the assessment of the searched person expired on 31 March 2023. It was undisputed that the assessment of the searched person was completed before that date. However, the satisfaction note was recorded only on 27 June 2024, resulting in a delay of approximately fifteen months. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax-III v. Calcutta Knitwears, which held that a satisfaction note must be prepared either at the initiation of proceedings against the searched person, during assessment proceedings, or immediately after the completion of such assessment.
