TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venience, Writ Petition No. 2178 of 2025 relating to A.Y. 2016-17 is taken as the lead matter. The facts are, therefore, being noted from the Petition for A.Y. 2016-17, save and except where a separate reference is necessary. 4. The Petitioner is an individual Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the IT Act'). For A.Y. 2016-17, the Petitioner filed his Return of Income on 18th July 2016 declaring total income of Rs.64,14,760/-. A search came to be carried out at the residence of the Petitioner on 03rd February 2021 as part of the search proceedings in the case of Mr. Samir Modi and Indofil Industries Limited. The said search was temporarily concluded on 05th February 2021. Prohibitory orders were placed on the almirah of the Petitioner and on the personal lockers of the Petitioner. The search proceedings were resumed and completed on 27th February 2021. Bank lockers in the name of the Petitioner were also searched. During the course of such search, cash was found from the premises of the Petitioner and from the locker of the Petitioner, and jewellery was also found from the locker. The same were seized. 5. Thereafter, nothing happened for nearly three years insofar as th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... searched person was recorded only on 03rd August 2023, namely after nearly 10 months. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-III V/S Calcutta Knitwears [(2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC)], and the decisions of this Court in Clear Channel India (P.) Ltd. V/S Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [(2026) 184 taxmann.com 434 (Bom)] and Nippon Life India Asset Management Ltd. V/S Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [in Writ Petition No.4516 of 2025 decided on 07th April 2026]. (c) Thirdly, it is submitted that the satisfaction note is without a DIN. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Ashok Commercial Enterprises V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [(2023) 459 ITR 100 (Bom)] and the decision in Clear Channel India (P). Ltd (supra), it is submitted that the satisfaction note is invalid and deemed to have never been issued. (d) Fourthly, it is submitted that the seized assets, namely the cash and jewellery which form the very basis of the alleged satisfaction, were never transferred to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the Petitioner. It is submitted that sine qua non for issuing Notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld therefore, have been the correct provisions in the present case. He further submitted that this Court in Clear Channel India (P). Ltd (supra) and Nippon Life India Asset Management Ltd. (supra) has already accepted the reasoning of the Delhi High Court and the Gujarat High Court that delay of 9 to 10 months does not satisfy the requirement of recording satisfaction "immediately" after completion of the assessment of the searched person. He argued that in the present case, the Revenue cannot ask for reasonable time period as in any event, the incriminating assets were the assets which were seized from the premises of the Petitioner and therefore, there could not have been any difficulty in recording any satisfaction note. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in our view these Petitions deserve to succeed for the reasons which are recorded hereunder. 12. On the issue of recording of satisfaction note, the matter is no longer res integra. This Court in Clear Channel India (P). Ltd (supra) after considering Calcutta Knitwears (supra), the CBDT Circular No. 24/2015, and the decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Gujarat High Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of the searched person. We find support in the decision of the Delhi High Court in Bharat Bhushan Jain (supra), where a delay of 10 months was held to be fatal. Similarly, the Gujarat High Court in Jitendra H. Modi HUF (supra) held that a period of 9 months could not be termed as "immediate". In Parag Rameshbhai Gathani V/S ITO [[2025] 180 taxmann.com 662 (Gujarat)/[2026] 308 Taxman 47 (Gujarat)], a delay of 22 months was held to be inordinate. 13. In the present case, the search was conducted in February 2021. The limitation for completing the assessment of the searched person (Shri Sandeep Arora) expired on 31st March 2023. It is undisputed that the assessment of the searched party was completed before such date. The satisfaction note was recorded on 27th June 2024. Hence, there is a delay of approximately 15 months from the last date for assessment of the searched person. Furthermore, the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer of the Petitioner is undated, which further casts doubt on the timeline of events. Regarding this objection raised in the Petition, the Reply Affidavit merely states that not writing of a date on the satisfaction note by Respondent No.1 is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....graph 10 of the decision in case of Nippon Life India Asset Management Ltd. (supra):- "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 Delhi High Court in Bharat Bhushan Jain (supra), where a delay of 10 months was held to be fatal. Similarly, the Gujarat High Court in Jitendra H. Modi HUF (supra) held that a period of 9 months could not be termed as "immediate". In Parag Rameshbhai Gathani v/s ITO [2025] 180 taxmann.com 662 (Gujarat)/ [2026] 308 taxman 47 (Gujarat)], a delay of 22 months was held to be inordinate. Even, this Court, in the case of Clear Channel India Private Limited v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors (Writ Petition No.4990 of 2025 dated 17th February 2026), after relying upon the decisions of the Delhi High Court as well as....