Papers of mine were seized in a search on somebody else and I have got notices under section 153C for six years. Which six years, and can completed assessments be reopened when the papers show nothing?
It depends, and here the answer was no on both counts. The Delhi High Court held that for a person other than the searched person, the six assessment years under section 153C run from the date the seized material is handed over to his Assessing Officer - here the satisfaction note of 8 September 2010 - not from the date of the search. Assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 were therefore outside the section. It further held that completed assessments cannot be reopened where the seized documents have no bearing on those years. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
Decided by the High Court (High Court of Delhi - Dr Justice S. Muralidhar and Mr Justice Vibhu Bakhru (judgment by Vibhu Bakhru, J)) on 2015-10-30, reported as ITA 164/2015 and connected matters (Delhi High Court). It bears on section 153C, section 153A, section 153C(1), section 132, section 69C of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Search, Survey & Block Assessment and Reassessment & Reopening matters.
Two of the most-used propositions on section 153C come from this judgment. The first shifts the six-year block forward to the date of handing over, which routinely knocks out the earliest one or two years the department has assessed; the Court's reason is that on the Revenue's reading the non-searched person would be exposed to a longer reach-back than the searched person himself, which the scheme cannot have intended. The second carries Kabul Chawla across from section 153A: a concluded assessment survives unless incriminating material is seized. It also resolves the tension in SSP Aviation - the searched person's officer need not judge whether the document shows undisclosed income, but the recipient officer may not press on when the document plainly has no bearing on the years in question. The Pepsico point on "belongs to" is applied too: a chartered accountant's working papers about a client do not belong to the client.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Search and seizure operations under section 132 were carried out on 20 October 2008 in the cases of B.K. Dhingra, Poonam Dhingra and Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt Ltd. Two things said to belong to RRJ Securities Ltd were seized: pages 126 to 179 of Annexure A-34, and a computer hard disk in Annexure A-102 containing soft copies of working papers, balance sheets and income tax filing data. The Assessing Officer, who had jurisdiction over both the searched persons and RRJ, recorded a satisfaction note on 8 September 2010 and issued notice under section 153C for assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09. Assessments under section 143(3) read with section 153C followed on 31 December 2010, adding the declared purchases under section 69C on the footing that the company could not substantiate its purchases of textile stock, and disallowing all expenses as unverifiable. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the additions and the Tribunal affirmed. It later emerged, on a Right to Information request, that Annexure A-34 was a single record slip of a cheque book with three entries dated August and December 2008 and the rest blank; and B.K. Dhingra, a chartered accountant, affirmed on affidavit that the hard disk was his firm's, held in his professional capacity, and that the data merely supported the returns filed.
All four Revenue appeals were dismissed. On the six-year block, the Court held that in a section 153C case the reference to the date of search in section 153A must be read as the date on which the Assessing Officer of the other person receives the seized assets or documents - here 8 September 2010 - so assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 fell outside the section and the officer had no jurisdiction over them. On the hard disk, following Pepsico India Holdings, a computer belonging to a chartered accountant's firm holding a client's working papers does not "belong to" the client, and the disk in any event contained nothing incriminating, so it could not support section 153C proceedings. On the record slip, the Court accepted that it belonged to the assessee, so the searched person's officer was right to hand it over; but its three entries related to a later year and had no bearing on assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09. Since the concluded assessments could only be disturbed on incriminating material, and no investigation was even necessary, the officer had no jurisdiction to reassess.
The Court worked through the mechanics of section 153C. Recording of satisfaction by the searched person's officer is mandatory and is the foundation of everything that follows, even where the same officer holds both files. Once satisfied and once the material is transferred, the assessment of the other person proceeds under section 153A, and in that setting the second proviso to section 153A must be read with the date of receipt of the documents substituted for the date of search. It follows that the six years are counted from that date. The Court tested the Revenue's contrary reading and found it produced an absurdity: because handing over always comes after the search, a person who was never searched would face a longer reach-back than the person who was, which is contrary to the scheme of section 153C(1). On reopening, the Court applied the summary of section 153A law from Kabul Chawla, decided two months earlier, and held those principles apply equally under section 153C because section 153C(1) directs the officer to proceed in accordance with section 153A. It then reconciled SSP Aviation. That decision means the searched person's officer need not form any view on undisclosed income before forwarding a document, and the recipient officer need not have concluded that it shows undisclosed income before issuing notice; section 153C exists to enable investigation. But it cannot be read as conferring jurisdiction to reassess in every case where a document is handed over. Where it is apparent that the document has no bearing on the assessee's income for the relevant years, an enquiry is impermissible.
The concluded assessments cannot be interfered with under Section 153A of the Act unless the incriminating material belonging to the Assessee has been seized.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppIt depends, and here the answer was no on both counts. The Delhi High Court held that for a person other than the searched person, the six assessment years under section 153C run from the date the seized material is handed over to his Assessing Officer - here the satisfaction note of 8 September 2010 - not from the date of the search. Assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 were therefore outside the section. It further held that completed assessments cannot be reopened where the seized documents have no bearing on those years. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed. This was decided by the High Court (High Court of Delhi - Dr Justice S. Muralidhar and Mr Justice Vibhu Bakhru (judgment by Vibhu Bakhru, J)) and bears on section 153C, section 153A, section 153C(1), section 132, section 69C of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA 164/2015 and connected matters (Delhi High Court). Two of the most-used propositions on section 153C come from this judgment. The first shifts the six-year block forward to the date of handing over, which routinely knocks out the earliest one or two years the department has assessed; the Court's reason is that on the Revenue's reading the non-searched person would be exposed to a longer reach-back than the searched person himself, which the scheme cannot have intended. The second carries Kabul Chawla across from section 153A: a concluded assessment survives unless incriminating material is seized. It also resolves the tension in SSP Aviation - the searched person's officer need not judge whether the document shows undisclosed income, but the recipient officer may not press on when the document plainly has no bearing on the years in question. The Pepsico point on "belongs to" is applied too: a chartered accountant's working papers about a client do not belong to the client. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Get the satisfaction note and the date the material was handed over, then count the six years back from that date and challenge any earlier year as outside section 153C.
Search and seizure operations under section 132 were carried out on 20 October 2008 in the cases of B.K. Dhingra, Poonam Dhingra and Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt Ltd. Two things said to belong to RRJ Securities Ltd were seized: pages 126 to 179 of Annexure A-34, and a computer hard disk in Annexure A-102 containing soft copies of working papers, balance sheets and income tax filing data. The Assessing Officer, who had jurisdiction over both the searched persons and RRJ, recorded a satisfaction note on 8 September 2010 and issued notice under section 153C for assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09. Assessments under section 143(3) read with section 153C followed on 31 December 2010, adding the declared purchases under section 69C on the footing that the company could not substantiate its purchases of textile stock, and disallowing all expenses as unverifiable. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the additions and the Tribunal affirmed. It later emerged, on a Right to Information request, that Annexure A-34 was a single record slip of a cheque book with three entries dated August and December 2008 and the rest blank; and B.K. Dhingra, a chartered accountant, affirmed on affidavit that the hard disk was his firm's, held in his professional capacity, and that the data merely supported the returns filed. The matter was decided on 2015-10-30 by the High Court (High Court of Delhi - Dr Justice S. Muralidhar and Mr Justice Vibhu Bakhru (judgment by Vibhu Bakhru, J)). On those facts the High Court held as follows. All four Revenue appeals were dismissed. On the six-year block, the Court held that in a section 153C case the reference to the date of search in section 153A must be read as the date on which the Assessing Officer of the other person receives the seized assets or documents - here 8 September 2010 - so assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 fell outside the section and the officer had no jurisdiction over them. On the hard disk, following Pepsico India Holdings, a computer belonging to a chartered accountant's firm holding a client's working papers does not "belong to" the client, and the disk in any event contained nothing incriminating, so it could not support section 153C proceedings. On the record slip, the Court accepted that it belonged to the assessee, so the searched person's officer was right to hand it over; but its three entries related to a later year and had no bearing on assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09. Since the concluded assessments could only be disturbed on incriminating material, and no investigation was even necessary, the officer had no jurisdiction to reassess.
The Court worked through the mechanics of section 153C. Recording of satisfaction by the searched person's officer is mandatory and is the foundation of everything that follows, even where the same officer holds both files. Once satisfied and once the material is transferred, the assessment of the other person proceeds under section 153A, and in that setting the second proviso to section 153A must be read with the date of receipt of the documents substituted for the date of search. It follows that the six years are counted from that date. The Court tested the Revenue's contrary reading and found it produced an absurdity: because handing over always comes after the search, a person who was never searched would face a longer reach-back than the person who was, which is contrary to the scheme of section 153C(1). On reopening, the Court applied the summary of section 153A law from Kabul Chawla, decided two months earlier, and held those principles apply equally under section 153C because section 153C(1) directs the officer to proceed in accordance with section 153A. It then reconciled SSP Aviation. That decision means the searched person's officer need not form any view on undisclosed income before forwarding a document, and the recipient officer need not have concluded that it shows undisclosed income before issuing notice; section 153C exists to enable investigation. But it cannot be read as conferring jurisdiction to reassess in every case where a document is handed over. Where it is apparent that the document has no bearing on the assessee's income for the relevant years, an enquiry is impermissible. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The concluded assessments cannot be interfered with under Section 153A of the Act unless the incriminating material belonging to the Assessee has been seized."
It was decided by the High Court on 2015-10-30 and is reported as ITA 164/2015 and connected matters (Delhi High Court). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 153C, section 153A, section 153C(1), section 132, section 69C, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. All four Revenue appeals were dismissed. On the six-year block, the Court held that in a section 153C case the reference to the date of search in section 153A must be read as the date on which the Assessing Officer of the other person receives the seized assets or documents - here 8 September 2010 - so assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 fell outside the section and the officer had no jurisdiction over them. On the hard disk, following Pepsico India Holdings, a computer belonging to a chartered accountant's firm holding a client's working papers does not "belong to" the client, and the disk in any event contained nothing incriminating, so it could not support section 153C proceedings. On the record slip, the Court accepted that it belonged to the assessee, so the searched person's officer was right to hand it over; but its three entries related to a later year and had no bearing on assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09. Since the concluded assessments could only be disturbed on incriminating material, and no investigation was even necessary, the officer had no jurisdiction to reassess. It arises in Search, Survey & Block Assessment and Reassessment & Reopening matters, on section 153C, section 153A, section 153C(1), section 132, section 69C of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by High Court of Delhi - Dr Justice S. Muralidhar and Mr Justice Vibhu Bakhru (judgment by Vibhu Bakhru, J). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Ask for copies of the seized material at the outset; here the assessee had to use the Right to Information Act to discover the document was a single cheque book record slip with three entries from 2008. Where the assessment for a year was already concluded and not pending on the handing-over date, argue there is no abatement and no jurisdiction to reassess without incriminating material bearing on that year. If the material was seized from a professional adviser's own records or computer, take the "belongs to" point - data about a client does not become the client's document.
Validity check could not be completed. I read the surviving text through to the operative order dismissing the appeals, so the holding itself is not in doubt. I could not check, from the material before me, whether section 153C has been amended since 2015 in a way that affects the reckoning of the six years, or whether this judgment has been considered by the Supreme Court, so I do not assert that it is good law today. Date scope: s.153A(1) by its closing limb, and s.153C by its sub-section (3), reach no search initiated on or after 1 April 2021, but this entry is not spent by that — a search initiated between 1 April 2021 and 31 August 2024 is, by force of s.152(3), a reassessment under ss.147 to 151 as they stood immediately before the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024, and the first proviso to s.149(1) in that frozen form bars a s.148 notice for any assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021 which could not have been reached within the time limits of s.153A or s.153C as they stood before the Finance Act 2021, so the reckoning of the block of assessment years worked out here is imported into that middle window and continues to decide those cases and must not be treated as spent; only a search initiated on or after 1 September 2024, which falls under the substituted Chapter XIV-B, is outside it. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The harvested page is clipped in the middle: pages 14 to 22 of 40 are absent, covering the Revenue's submissions and the Court's discussion of the earlier authorities on section 153C down to its citation of the Delhi Full Bench line on satisfaction notes. The framed questions, the facts, the whole of the Court's reasoning from paragraph 20 onwards, and the operative order all survive. The batch line listed sections 153C, 153A and 132; sections 153C(1) and 69C are added from the judgment. The Court expressly declined to answer the two questions originally framed - on section 69C and on bringing the disallowed amounts to tax in a search assessment - having decided the jurisdictional question, so this record says nothing about them. The source page carried no reporter citations, so the case numbers are given instead. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
All four Revenue appeals were dismissed. On the six-year block, the Court held that in a section 153C case the reference to the date of search in section 153A must be read as the date on which the Assessing Officer of the other person receives the seized assets or documents - here 8 September 2010 - so assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 fell outside the section and the officer had no jurisdiction over them. On the hard disk, following Pepsico India Holdings, a computer belonging to a chartered accountant's firm holding a client's working papers does not "belong to" the client, and the disk in any event contained nothing incriminating, so it could not support section 153C proceedings. On the record slip, the Court accepted that it belonged to the assessee, so the searched person's officer was right to hand it over; but its three entries related to a later year and had no bearing on assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09. Since the concluded assessments could only be disturbed on incriminating material, and no investigation was even necessary, the officer had no jurisdiction to reassess.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
When must the satisfaction note be recorded before proceedings are taken against a third party?
The seized documents say nothing about the years being assessed. Can s.153C still be used for them?
The search party carted away all our books. Does the way a search was conducted make it illegal?
The search was before June 2015 but the notice came later. Which version of s.153C applies?