AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1041
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rticle 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the validity of the Notices dated 30th August 2024 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the I. T. Act") for the three years, as well as the Notices dated 14th July 2025 issued under Section 143(2) of the I. T. Act and the orders on objections dated 3rd February 2026. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of providing services as an investment manager to Nippon India Mutual Fund (earlier known as Reliance Mutual Fund) and provides portfolio management and advisory services to its clients. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted on 3rd February 2021 in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings of the searched person. He pointed out that the search, which forms the basis of the present proceeding, was concluded in February 2021. The assessment on the searched persons, namely, Mr. Samir Modi and Ms. Shivani Modi, were concluded on 27th September 2022 and 26th September 2022 respectively. However, the Satisfaction Note by the Assessing Officer of the searched persons was recorded only on 3rd July 2024, i.e., after 21 months from the conclusion of the assessment of the searched persons. He further submitted that the Satisfaction Note of the Assessing Officer of the Petitioner i.e., Respondent No. 1, is dated 29th August 2024. He also relied upon the CBDT Circular No.24/2015 dated 31st December 2015, which clarifies that thoug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of the searched persons and the date when the Assessing Officer of the searched person issued the Satisfaction Note. When the Assessing Officer of the other person records his satisfaction is irrelevant. In the present case, the assessment of the searched persons were concluded on 26th and 27th September 2022, the Assessing Officer of the searched persons ought to have recorded his satisfaction under Section 153C of the I. T. Act "immediately" thereafter, whereas such satisfaction was recorded only on 3rd July 2024. He submitted that this could not be regarded as "immediately" after conclusion of the assessment proceedings, thus, rendering the proceedings under Section 153C invalid. 8. We have considered the rival submissions a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stood to be as soon as possible or without delay. Therefore, the Respondents are not correct when they say that the satisfaction has to be recorded within a "reasonable time". The Supreme Court has consciously used the term "immediately" and due meaning should be given to the said term. 10. The CBDT Circular No.24/2015 dated 31st December 2015 explicitly states that the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Knitwears (supra) applies to proceedings under Section 153C of the I. T. Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer of the searched persons was required to record satisfaction, at the latest, "immediately" after the completion of the assessment of the searched persons. In this regard, we find support in the decision of the Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assistance to the Revenue. Firstly, in the said decision, the delay of preparing the Satisfaction Note was of 9 months whereas in the facts of the present case the delay is of 21 months. Even if we were to assume that the delay of 9 months could be construed (not that we are in any way affirming the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court) as being "immediately" after the Assessment Proceedings of the searched person is concluded as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Knitwears (supra), the same would be wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the reliance placed on the aforesaid decision of Bhupinder Singh Kapur (supra), by the Revenue is wholly misplaced. 11. In the present case, the search was co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wherein it is clarified that in the earlier affidavit, HGEL was referred to as the searched party due to an inadvertent mistake and a bona fide error arising from misappreciation / mixing up of records pertaining to proceedings under Section 153A and 153C of the I. T. Act. It has now been admitted / clarified that (a) Mr. Samir Modi and Ms. Shivani Modi are the searched persons; (b) the assessments in their cases were completed on 27th September 2022 and 26th September 2022 respectively, and their assessment orders have been exhibited to the affidavit; and (c) there is a delay of 21 months and 6 days. The stand taken in the earlier affidavit, namely, that HGEL was the searched person has been withdrawn. Therefore, we do not have to delve fu....