Rajib Mukhopadhyay Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court)
Core Issue: The principal issue before the Bombay High Court was whether proceedings initiated under section 153C were valid where the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer of the searched person was recorded nearly ten months after completion of the assessment of the searched person. The Court examined whether the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Knitwears that the satisfaction note be recorded “immediately” after completion of the searched person’s assessment constitutes a mandatory jurisdictional condition.
Facts: A search was conducted on 03.02.2021 at the residence and bank lockers of the petitioner during search proceedings relating to Mr. Samir Modi and Indofil Industries Ltd. Cash and jewellery belonging to the petitioner were seized during the search. Although the search concluded in February 2021, no proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for nearly three years. Thereafter, notices under section 153C were issued on 10.08.2023 for AYs 2015-16 to 2021-22. Upon seeking relevant records, the petitioner was supplied with two satisfaction notes—one dated 03.08.2023 recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person and another dated 10.08.2023 recorded by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the notices principally on the ground that the satisfaction note of the searched person’s Assessing Officer had been recorded almost ten months after completion of the searched person’s assessment on or about 27.09.2022, contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
