Abatement under Chapter XIV-B requires search-linked discovery of an individual's undisclosed income; lacking that, assessment jurisdiction upheld.

The petition challenged jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass an assessment and penalties post-search, invoking abatement under the Chapter XIV-B scheme; the court applied the Chapter XIV-B framework (including the definition of block period and abatement provision) and required that abatement attach only where the pending assessment year falls within the block period and the assessment is confined to 'total undisclosed income' discovered in the search. The factual record did not establish discovery of the petitioner's individual undisclosed income in the search or satisfaction of Chapter XIV-B conditions, so the court declined extraordinary writ relief and upheld the AO's jurisdiction to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to pass the Assessment Order dated 17.03.2025 and consequential penalty orders in respect of Assessment Year 2022-23 despite a search under Section 132/132A having been conducted on 26.11.2024, in light of the abatement provision contained in Section 158BA(2) read with the definition of "block period" in Section 158B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 158BA(1)-(2) and the definition of "block period" in Section 158B newly frame a special Chapter XIV-B procedure limiting assessments to "total undisclosed income" discovered by search/requisition; subsection (2) provides that pending assessments relating to assessment years falling in the block period shall abate. The statutory scheme in Chapter XIV-B must be read as a whole to determine the scope of abatement and the conditions for exercise of jurisdiction under that Chapter. The factual record, including the panchnama, shows the search was conducted in relation to juristic persons/entities and not specifically against the petitioner in his individual status; the assessment framed on 17.03.2025 arose from scrutiny (CASS) of the petitioner's individual return and does not, on the pleadings, demonstrate that any "total undisclosed income" of the petitioner was discovered in the search or that incriminating material relating to his individual undisclosed income was found. The petitioner did not establish that Chapter XIV-B conditions for abatement of the pending (re)assessment were satisfied or that the assessment in question was confined to undisclosed income as a result of the search. In absence of those material facts, and having regard to the statutory distinction between assessments of "total income" (e.g., Section 153A context) and "total undisclosed income" under Chapter XIV-B, the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash or hold the assessment abated would require resolution of disputed factual questions which the petitioner has not established before this Court.

Conclusion: Issue decided against the petitioner; the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to proceed with assessment and consequential penalty orders in the circumstances pleaded, and the writ petition seeking abatement under Section 158BA(2) is not maintainable on the record before the Court.

---