2025 (12) TMI 1717

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner(s) No. 1: Mr. Jaimin R Dave (7022).   For the Petitioner(s) No. 1: Ms Hirva R Dave (10742). For the Respondent(s) No. 1: Ms Maithili D Mehta (3206).   COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) 1. Since a very short issue is involved in the matter, the captioned petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2. RULE. Learned Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Maithili Mehta waives service of notice of admission. 3. The pleadings in Special Civil Application No. 5039 of 2024 are complete, hence the same is taken up as a lead matter. The prayer reads thus:- "8(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the notice dated 24.06.2022 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to be quashed and set aside, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 362 ITR 673 as well as the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 24 of 2015 dated 31.12.2015, since the respondent for the first time on 31.05.2024 has communicated the satisfaction note. It is submitted that the satisfaction note of the searched person i.e. M/s. World Window Group was recorded on 06.05.2022 and the petitioner-company has been conveyed the satisfaction note on 30.05.2024, i.e. beyond the reasonable period of limitation. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court dated 18.11.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No. 3734 of 2025 and allied matters. 7. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er of the petitioner does not bear any date. It is also established on record and not disputed that the said satisfaction note was supplied to the petitioner-company on 30.05.2024, i.e. after a period of two years. No explanation is coming forward about the intervening period of delay. 10. Keeping in mind the aforenoted established facts, we may, at the outset, refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (supra). The Supreme Court in the said case, while examining the provisions of Section 158BC of the Act (now Section 153A of the Act), has held as under: "44. In the result, we hold that for the purpose of Section 158BD of the Act, a satisfaction note is sine qua non and must be prepared by the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... down that for the purpose of Section 158BD of the Act, recording of a satisfaction note is a prerequisite and the satisfaction note must be prepared by the AO before he transmits the record to the other AO who has jurisdiction over such other person uls 158BD. The Hon'ble Court held that "the satisfaction note could be prepared at any of the following stages: (a) at the time of or along with the initiation of proceedings against the searched person under section 158BC of the Act; or (b) in the course of the assessment proceedings under section 158BC of the Act; or (c) immediately after the assessment proceedings are completed under section 158BC of the Act of the searched person." 3. Several High Cou....