Vijay Bihari Kandhari Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2019-20, holding that the proceedings had become time-barred. The petitioner sought quashing of the notices dated 10 December 2020 issued under Section 153C, along with consequential notices under Section 143(2) and show cause notices issued for completion of assessment. The petitioner primarily contended that the statutory time limit for completing the assessments had expired on 30 September 2021 and that the continuation of proceedings thereafter was without jurisdiction.
Read SC Judgment in this case: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of Time-Barred Section 153C Notices
The proceedings originated from a search and seizure operation conducted under Section 132 on 21 August 2019 in the case of Oberoi Realty Limited and others. During the search, the Income Tax Department allegedly discovered incriminating documents and information concerning the petitioner. Based on these materials, proceedings under Section 153C were initiated and notices were issued for Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2019-20.
The petitioner argued that the limitation for completing the assessments was governed by Section 153B of the Income-tax Act read with the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). According to the petitioner, the time available for completing the assessments expired on 30 September 2021. It was pointed out that despite expiry of the limitation period, the Assessing Officer continued issuing show cause notices dated 11 March 2022 and 16 March 2022. The petitioner also emphasized that the Assessing Officer of the searched person (Oberoi Realty Limited) and the petitioner was the same officer, both falling under Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT, the petitioner contended that the extended limitation based on transfer of records under Section 153C was not applicable where the Assessing Officer for both the searched person and the other person was the same.
