Allowing the petition the Court held that the search was conducted in all the cases on a date prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, on the date of the search, the Assessing Officer of the person in respect of whom the search was conducted could only have recorded satisfaction to the effect that the seized material or belonged to the other person. The hard disc containing the information relating to the assessees admittedly did not belong to them, therefore, as on the date of the search, the essential jurisdictional requirement to justify assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C in case of the assessees, did not exist. The notices under section 153C were not valid. As regards alternative remedy the Court held that the assessees had responded to the notices under section 153C of the Act and after receipt of the satisfaction notice, objected to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officers in issuing such notices. The Assessing Officers, in majority of the cases had rejected the objections and it was at this stage that the assessees had approached the court challenging the notices. When the proceedings were claimed to be wholly without jurisdiction, the alternative remedy would not operate as a bar to a writ petition. The writ petition was maintainable. As regards the limitation the Court held that, section 153B provides for the limitation for completion of assessment and neither provides for nor imposes any restrictions or conditions on the period of limitation for preparation of the satisfaction note under section 153C of the Act and consequent issuance of notice to the other person. Admittedly, such satisfaction had not been recorded at the time of or along with the initiation of proceedings against the person in respect of whom the search was conducted under section 153A of the Act. Accordingly the relevant date for computation of the six assessment years in respect of which notice was required to be issued was the immediately preceding assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search was conducted or requisition was made. If notices under section 153C of the Act had been issued for assessment years beyond these six assessment years they would be beyond jurisdiction. (AY. 2008-09 to 2014-15)
Anilkumar Gopikishan Agrawal v. CIT (2019) 418 ITR 25/ ( 2020) 186 DTR 273 / 313 CTR 520(Guj.) (HC).Editorial . ITO v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia (2023)453 ITR 417/ 293 Taxman 4/ 332 CTR 1/ 224 DTR 217 (SC), order of High court reversed/ Reversed ,ACIT v. Anilkumar Gopikishan Agrawal (2023)454 ITR 531 (SC)
S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search Search prior to 1-6-2015-S.153C as amended W.E.F. 1-6-2015 is not applicable-Limitation-Notice issued for the assessment years beyond six assessment years would be beyond jurisdiction- Writ is maintainable. [S. 132, 153A, 153B, Art. 226]