Material seized in someone else's search has been passed to my client's Assessing Officer, who has issued a section 158BC notice. What is my client's block period, and from when does the department's time run?
Your client's block period is not computed from his own affairs at all — it is the block period of the searched person. Where there is one specified person relevant to him, the first proviso to section 158BD makes his block period the same as that person's; where there is more than one, it is that of the specified person whose block period ends on the later date. Time for the department runs under section 158BE(3): twelve months from the end of the quarter in which the section 158BC notice was issued to your client.
Decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) on 2024-09-01, reported as Income-tax Act 1961, s.158BD, in Chapter XIV-B as substituted w.e.f. 1 September 2024 by s.49 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024 (Act No. 15 of 2024) and substituted by the Finance Act 2025 (Act No. 7 of 2025) w.r.e.f. 1 September 2024. It bears on section 158BD, section 158BC, section 158BA, section 158BE, section 132, section 132A, section 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Search, Survey & Block Assessment, Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
The revived section 158BD keeps the machinery that generated Manish Maheshwari and Calcutta Knitwears — a satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, a handing over of material to the officer having jurisdiction over the other person, and a proceeding under section 158BC — but it adds two things that the old section did not have, and both are worth pleading. First, the block period is now aligned by statute with the searched person's, so the year-by-year computation disputes that dominated section 153C litigation (Ojjus Medicare, Saksham Commodities, Jasjit Singh) do not arise in the same form: there is no separate reckoning from the date of receipt of the material for the purpose of fixing the block. Second, the date of receipt has been given a different job. The second proviso provides that, for the purposes of abatement under section 158BA(2) and (3), the reference to the date of initiation of the search or the making of the requisition is to be read as a reference to the date on which the material was RECEIVED by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person. So the other person's pending assessments abate from the date of receipt, not from the date of the search — which is the section 153C rule the Supreme Court reached in Jasjit Singh, now written into the statute. The satisfaction itself remains the jurisdictional gateway: the officer must be satisfied that undisclosed income 'belongs to or pertains to or relates to' the other person, and the section now expressly covers a virtual digital asset among the things handed over.
Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Not a case. Section 158BD provides that where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to or pertains to or relates to any person (the 'other person') other than the person with respect to whom the search was initiated under section 132 or the requisition made under section 132A (the 'specified person'), then any money, bullion, jewellery, virtual digital asset or other valuable article or thing, or any books of account or other documents seized or requisitioned, or any other material or information relating to that undisclosed income, shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person, and that officer shall proceed under section 158BC against the other person, the provisions of the Chapter applying accordingly. The first proviso provides that where there is one specified person relevant to the other person, the block period for the other person shall be the same as that for the specified person, and where there is more than one specified person, the block period shall be the same as that for the specified person in whose case the block period ends on a later date. The second proviso provides that, in the case of the other person, for the purposes of abatement under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 158BA, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or the making of a requisition under section 132A shall be construed as a reference to the date on which the material was received by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person.
Statutory position — no holding is asserted; this entry reproduces statutory text. Where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that undisclosed income belongs to, pertains to or relates to a person other than the person searched, the material is handed over to the officer having jurisdiction over that other person, who proceeds under section 158BC. The other person's block period is the same as the specified person's, or the later-ending one where there is more than one specified person. For abatement under section 158BA(2) and (3) in the other person's case, the date of receipt of the material by his Assessing Officer replaces the date of initiation of the search or requisition.
Not a judicial route. The section preserves the three-step structure of its predecessor — satisfaction, handover, proceeding under section 158BC — while removing the two questions that produced most of the litigation about the earlier provisions. Because the other person's block period is now a statutory copy of the searched person's, there is nothing to compute from the date of handover for that purpose, and the year-by-year exercise that section 153C required does not arise. Because the second proviso substitutes the date of receipt for the date of the search for abatement purposes only, the other person's pending proceedings do not abate before his Assessing Officer has anything to act on. The words 'belongs to or pertains to or relates to' are wider than the 'belongs to' formulation that the earlier section 153C litigation turned on.
Provided that,— (a) where there is one specified person relevant to such other person, the block period for such other person shall be the same as that for the specified person; and (b) where there is more than one specified persons relevant to such other person, the block period for such other persons shall be the same as that for the specified person in whose case the block period ends on a later date:
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 WhatsAppYour client's block period is not computed from his own affairs at all — it is the block period of the searched person. Where there is one specified person relevant to him, the first proviso to section 158BD makes his block period the same as that person's; where there is more than one, it is that of the specified person whose block period ends on the later date. Time for the department runs under section 158BE(3): twelve months from the end of the quarter in which the section 158BC notice was issued to your client. This was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) and bears on section 158BD, section 158BC, section 158BA, section 158BE, section 132, section 132A, section 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Income-tax Act 1961, s.158BD, in Chapter XIV-B as substituted w.e.f. 1 September 2024 by s.49 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024 (Act No. 15 of 2024) and substituted by the Finance Act 2025 (Act No. 7 of 2025) w.r.e.f. 1 September 2024. The revived section 158BD keeps the machinery that generated Manish Maheshwari and Calcutta Knitwears — a satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, a handing over of material to the officer having jurisdiction over the other person, and a proceeding under section 158BC — but it adds two things that the old section did not have, and both are worth pleading. First, the block period is now aligned by statute with the searched person's, so the year-by-year computation disputes that dominated section 153C litigation (Ojjus Medicare, Saksham Commodities, Jasjit Singh) do not arise in the same form: there is no separate reckoning from the date of receipt of the material for the purpose of fixing the block. Second, the date of receipt has been given a different job. The second proviso provides that, for the purposes of abatement under section 158BA(2) and (3), the reference to the date of initiation of the search or the making of the requisition is to be read as a reference to the date on which the material was RECEIVED by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person. So the other person's pending assessments abate from the date of receipt, not from the date of the search — which is the section 153C rule the Supreme Court reached in Jasjit Singh, now written into the statute. The satisfaction itself remains the jurisdictional gateway: the officer must be satisfied that undisclosed income 'belongs to or pertains to or relates to' the other person, and the section now expressly covers a virtual digital asset among the things handed over. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Ask for the satisfaction note and the date it was recorded, and for the date the material was received by your client's Assessing Officer. Both dates are now operative facts — the second fixes abatement, and the notice date fixes limitation.
Not a case. Section 158BD provides that where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to or pertains to or relates to any person (the 'other person') other than the person with respect to whom the search was initiated under section 132 or the requisition made under section 132A (the 'specified person'), then any money, bullion, jewellery, virtual digital asset or other valuable article or thing, or any books of account or other documents seized or requisitioned, or any other material or information relating to that undisclosed income, shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person, and that officer shall proceed under section 158BC against the other person, the provisions of the Chapter applying accordingly. The first proviso provides that where there is one specified person relevant to the other person, the block period for the other person shall be the same as that for the specified person, and where there is more than one specified person, the block period shall be the same as that for the specified person in whose case the block period ends on a later date. The second proviso provides that, in the case of the other person, for the purposes of abatement under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 158BA, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or the making of a requisition under section 132A shall be construed as a reference to the date on which the material was received by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person. The matter was decided on 2024-09-01 by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text). On those facts the CBDT Circulars & Instructions held as follows. Statutory position — no holding is asserted; this entry reproduces statutory text. Where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that undisclosed income belongs to, pertains to or relates to a person other than the person searched, the material is handed over to the officer having jurisdiction over that other person, who proceeds under section 158BC. The other person's block period is the same as the specified person's, or the later-ending one where there is more than one specified person. For abatement under section 158BA(2) and (3) in the other person's case, the date of receipt of the material by his Assessing Officer replaces the date of initiation of the search or requisition.
Not a judicial route. The section preserves the three-step structure of its predecessor — satisfaction, handover, proceeding under section 158BC — while removing the two questions that produced most of the litigation about the earlier provisions. Because the other person's block period is now a statutory copy of the searched person's, there is nothing to compute from the date of handover for that purpose, and the year-by-year exercise that section 153C required does not arise. Because the second proviso substitutes the date of receipt for the date of the search for abatement purposes only, the other person's pending proceedings do not abate before his Assessing Officer has anything to act on. The words 'belongs to or pertains to or relates to' are wider than the 'belongs to' formulation that the earlier section 153C litigation turned on. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Provided that,— (a) where there is one specified person relevant to such other person, the block period for such other person shall be the same as that for the specified person; and (b) where there is more than one specified persons relevant to such other person, the block period for such other persons shall be the same as that for the specified person in whose case the block period ends on a later date:"
It was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions on 2024-09-01 and is reported as Income-tax Act 1961, s.158BD, in Chapter XIV-B as substituted w.e.f. 1 September 2024 by s.49 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024 (Act No. 15 of 2024) and substituted by the Finance Act 2025 (Act No. 7 of 2025) w.r.e.f. 1 September 2024. Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them. A CBDT circular or instruction binds officers of the department but not the assessee and not the courts. Where a circular helps you, you may hold the department to it. Where it hurts you, it cannot override the Act or a judgment. On section 158BD, section 158BC, section 158BA, section 158BE, section 132, section 132A, section 153C, 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 cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. Statutory position — no holding is asserted; this entry reproduces statutory text. Where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that undisclosed income belongs to, pertains to or relates to a person other than the person searched, the material is handed over to the officer having jurisdiction over that other person, who proceeds under section 158BC. The other person's block period is the same as the specified person's, or the later-ending one where there is more than one specified person. For abatement under section 158BA(2) and (3) in the other person's case, the date of receipt of the material by his Assessing Officer replaces the date of initiation of the search or requisition. It arises in Search, Survey & Block Assessment, Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 158BD, section 158BC, section 158BA, section 158BE, section 132, section 132A, section 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Not applicable — statutory text. 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. Establish who the specified person is and what his block period is. Your client's block period is a copy of it, and if the department has computed a different one the notice is wrong on its face. Where more than one search has fed material into your client's case, identify which specified person's block period ends later; that is the one the statute adopts. Check what was pending against your client on the date of receipt of the material. Those proceedings abate on that date under section 158BA(2) read with the second proviso to section 158BD, and anything done in them afterwards is open to challenge. Count limitation under section 158BE(3) from the end of the quarter in which the section 158BC notice was issued to your client — not from the search, and not from the receipt of the material. Cite Manish Maheshwari and Calcutta Knitwears for the satisfaction requirement, but say plainly that they were decided on the 1995 section 158BD, and cite Jasjit Singh, if at all, as a section 153C case whose result the second proviso now reproduces.
Still good law. In force with retrospective effect from 1 September 2024. No decision applying the substituted section 158BD was located; the Orissa High Court in Saroj Kumar Sahoo reproduced it and referred to it in rejecting an argument built on section 158BA(2), but that judgment is already in this library. Whether the satisfaction requirement laid down in Manish Maheshwari and the timing rule in Calcutta Knitwears apply to the substituted section has not been decided so far as this pass could find. 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 current departmental page carries the footnote 'Sub. by Act No. 7 of 2025, w.r.e.f. 1-9-2024', so the text set out here is the section as substituted by the Finance Act 2025 with effect from the commencement of the revived Chapter. The Orissa High Court in Saroj Kumar Sahoo expressly described the section it reproduced as 'Section 158BD of the IT Act as amended with retrospective effect from 01.09.2024 by virtue of the Finance Act, 2025' and its reproduction is word for word the same as the departmental page, which is the second route relied on here. The corresponding block-period rule appears in the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024 text as a second proviso to section 158BC(1)(c) — both 2026 Tribunal orders that reproduce the 2024 text of section 158BC print it there — so a reader working from a pre-2025 copy of the Chapter should look for it in section 158BC rather than section 158BD. This is a statutory entry and not a decision: 'bench' and 'favours' carry no case values, 'tier' is set to 'cbdt' because the library's fixed tier vocabulary has no value for a statutory entry and the source is the Income-tax Department's own section pages rather than a Board circular, and 'decided_on' is not a date of decision but the date the substituted Chapter XIV-B commences, 1 September 2024. 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.
Statutory position — no holding is asserted; this entry reproduces statutory text. Where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that undisclosed income belongs to, pertains to or relates to a person other than the person searched, the material is handed over to the officer having jurisdiction over that other person, who proceeds under section 158BC. The other person's block period is the same as the specified person's, or the later-ending one where there is more than one specified person. For abatement under section 158BA(2) and (3) in the other person's case, the date of receipt of the material by his Assessing Officer replaces the date of initiation of the search or requisition.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Is a notice under s.143(2) a jurisdictional precondition, or merely a procedural step the Assessing Officer can skip?
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?
An amendment adds a new levy. Does it reach back to earlier years?