BIPIN MOHANLAL SIDDHPURA V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

SCA/20846/2019

AI Insights

The case involves a series of writ applications filed by Jitendra Mansukhlal Adesara, the proprietor of Amrut Jewellers, challenging the notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search operation at Rajkot Airport. The search, part of election expenditure monitoring, led to the seizure of gold and jewelry, which was allegedly linked to Adesara's business. The primary legal contention was whether the gold seized, which was sent for job work, could be considered as belonging to Adesara, thus justifying the issuance of notices for the specified assessment years. The court examined the satisfaction note and other evidences presented by the Income Tax Department and concluded that the notices were validly issued.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 750156 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: ITO vs. Canyon Financial Services Ltd., Calcutta Knitwears vs. ITO, Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, M/s. Super Malls Private Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8, New Delhi
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MAUNA BHATT
• Assessee Lawyers: DARSHAN PATEL
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Income Tax; Job Work; Satisfaction note; Search and seizure
• Section: 132; 153A; 153C

Judgement Text

"C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20844 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20845 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20846 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20847 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20848 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20849 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20850 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20851 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20852 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20853 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20854 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20855 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20856 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20857 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20858 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20859 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20860 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20861 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20862 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21390 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21392 of 2019 Page 1 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21407 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21408 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21409 of 2019 ========================================================== JITENDRA MANSUKHLAL ADESARA Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ========================================================== Appearance: DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Date : 04/01/2021 COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned writ­applications are the same and inter­related, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application No.20844 of 2019 is treated as the lead matter. 3. By this writ­application under Article­226 of the Constitution of India, the writ­applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:­ (A) be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned notices dated 12/09/2019 u/s.153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Annexure 'A' (Colly) and the order dated 22/10/2019 disposing off the objections at Annexure 'D'; Page 2 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER (B) pending admission, hearing and disposal of this petition, ad­ interim relief be granted and the respondent be ordered to restrain from enforcing compliance of the impugned notices dated 12/09/2019 at Annexure 'A' (Colly) and/or taking any other steps in this regard including ex­parte order or implementation of preliminary order dated 22/10/2019 at Annexure 'D'. (C) Award the cost of this petition. (D) grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit. 4. The facts giving rise to this writ­application may be summarized as under:­ 4.1 The writ­applicant is a Proprietor of a Proprietory Concern running in the name of 'Amrut Jewellers' and is engaged in the business of gold ornaments at Rajkot. It appears that a search under Section­132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act, 1961'] was conducted at the Rajkot Airport on 27/10/2017 in the case of one Shri Sureshkumar of the Jay Matadi Air Service and one Shri Jagdish Prashad of the Bright Courier. 4.2 The writ­applicant came to be served with a notice under Section­ 153C of the Act, 1961 dated 12.09.2019 for the Assessment Years 2012­ 13 to 2017­18. The respondent provided the writ­applicant with the satisfaction note for initiation of the assessment proceedings under Section­153C of the Act. The satisfaction note reads thus:­ “During the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 153A in the case of Shri Suresh Kumar Jaikishan Bangarwa and Shri Jagdish Prasad Pranlal, some facts about the assessee emerged/ noticed, which is discussed in details as below; 2. In view of the requirement expressed by the Election Commission of India, vide order issued by the Honourable Principal Page 3 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat bearing No. Pr. CC/ABD/HQ/Election duty/2017­18 dated 06.10.2017, officers and officials of Income Tax Department, Gujarat were deployed at various stations and Airports for Gujarat State Assemble Election. Accordingly officers and officials of the Income Tax Department were deployed as Rajkot Airport for establishing the Air Intelligence Unit (AIU) at Rajkot Airport. This case was emerged out of the interception done by the AIU at Rajkot Airport on 27.10.2017 during doing their duty related to Election Expenditure Monitoring(EEM). 3. On 27.10.2017, Inspector of AIU on duty at Rajkot Airport found two persons Namely Shri Sureshkumar from Jay Mata Di Air Service and Shri Jagdish Prasad from Bright Courier came at around 4.30 PM to get the delivery of three and two parcels respectively which came through Jet Airways Flight from Hyderabad and Delhi. Inspector on duty felt that something suspicious is going on. Therefore he asked the Central Industrial security Forces persons to inquire in the matter. On being asked by the CISF about the content of the parcels, in reply they both got fumbled but they accepted that it contains bullion and jewellery. In this regard enquiry was also conducted by AIU Rajkot, regarding the ownership of the parcels and asked them to produce the relevant documents to prove the genuineness of the gold intercepted. However, both these persons were unable to explain the same. Therefore proceedings as per income tax act were initiated by Investigation Wing. 4. In this regard statement of Shri Suresh Kumar Jaikishan Bangarwa of the Act on oath recorded by ADIT(Inv), Unit­II, Rajkot which started on 27.10.2017 at 05.40 PM at the Air Port, Rajkot. He was asked to produce the supportive evidence in support of the ownership of the parcles but he failed to submit anything in this regard. Therefore, he was given ample opportunities and sufficient time to gather the documents in support of the parcels' ownership like bills, vouchers, form no. 402 / 403, etc. However, after lapse of considerable time he failed to produce any concrete documentary evidences. After sometime Shir Sureshkumar said that there may be some documents in the parcels which may give details of the real receiver of the parcel and for that he has to open the parcels. Therefore, he was allowed to open his three parcels. 31 small parcels and some papers related to booking of the same were found in these three parcels. Out of these 31 parcels, two parcels had bills which are primary requirement to prove that the goods are accounted for. Thus, both parcels have not been questioned. Further inquiry was carried out for the remaining 29 parcels. 5. Accordingly, recording of statement of Shri Sureshkumar Jaikishan Bangarwa under oath u/s 131(1A) r.w.s 131 of the I.T. Act, Page 4 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER 1961 was concluded. After giving ample opportunities and more than 18 hours, he failed to submit anything new the what he had submitted earlier. It was reported to the Joint Director of Income­tax(Inv.), and further proceedings were initiated to convert the inquiry into search action. Subsequently, this office had received a warrant no. 006601 duly signed by PDIT(Inv.), Ahmedabad to seize the unaccounted parcels found in the possession of Shri Sureshkumar Jaikishan Bangarwa. The said warrant was executed to Shri Sureshkumar Jaikishan Bangarwa at 03:30 PM on 28.10.2017 and search proceedings were started by the team in presence of two witnesses. Thus, the inquiry initiated u/s 131 was converted into search u/s 132. 6 During the course of search, statement of Sureshkumar Jaikishan Bangarwa u/s 132(4) was recorded on oath. He was once again asked to produce the evidence if any gathered by him in support of the goods contained in the parcels. In response to the opportunity given to him, he categorically denied having anything to submit before the department. 7. During the course of search action u/s 132 total following Assets were found and seized from the persons, which were claimed to belongings to the various person as claimed by the searched party; No. Name of the persons Gold/Bullion/ Jewellery etc. found Gold/Bullion/ Jewellery etc. Seized 1 SHRI SURESH KUMAR Employee of M/s. Jay Matadi Air Services, Rajkot 11417.850 grams valued at Rs.3,42,67,586/­ 11051.710 grams Valued at Rs.3,30,23,437/­ 2 SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD Employee of M/s. Bright Courier Service, Rajkot 13332.24 grams Valued at Rs.4,03,16,846/­ 13332.24 grams valued at Rs.4,03,16,846/­ Total 24383.95 grams valued at Rs.7,33,40,283/­ 8. During the post search proceedings following parcels, containing Fine Gold weighing 622.48 grams valued at Rs. 1837561/­ as per valuation report is seized. The said parcel sent by Chhunnu Mal Mahendra Jain of Delhi to below mentioned party / parties of Rajkot mentioned in column B for job work. Details of parties is/are as under: Page 5 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER Name and Address of the sender (A) PAN of sender Name and Address of the receiver (B) Parce l Nos. Weight (In grams) Value (In Rs.) Chhunnu Mal Mahendra Jain 1333 Chandni Chowk, Delhi 110006 GSTIN: 07AAAFC46 21R1ZA AAAFC4621R Naimish Adesara Amrut Jewellers Opp. Modi Street Mandvi Chowk, soni Bazar, Rajkot 360 001 GSTIN: 24ACEPA7985N1 Z6 J­15 622.48 1837561 9. Further appraisal report and the details of investigation done in the matter and statement recorded by the Investigation wing is examined and it is found that the documents furnished to substantiate the transaction by both the parties are failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the documents and submissions made by both these parties nothing but more than a futile effort based on after thoughts for coloring the unaccounted transaction vis­à­vis transfer of unaccounted gold bullion. 10. In view of above, I am satisfied that the above seized Gold articles from above mentioned parcel nos containing Fine Gold weighing 622.48 grams valued at Rs. 1837561/­ seized from searched party named Shri Suresh Kumar Jaikishan Bangarwa (PAN­ DBBPK4089Q) / Shri Jagdish Prasad (PAN EKHPP3432A) covered u/s. 153A of the I T Act belongs to and information in this regard and is related to Jitendra Mansukhlal Adesara Prop. Of Amrut Jewellers PAN: ACEPA7985N i.e. assessee being other than the person 153A of the Act. 11. As per amended section 153C(1)(b), where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that nay books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the proceedings u/s 153C shall be initiated. 12. Thus I am satisfied that the gold seized and statement recorded have a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee, Jitendra Mansukhlal Adesara Prop. Of Amrut Jewellers, Page 6 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER Hence, I am sttisfied that it is a fit case for issuing notice u/s. 153C of the Income­tax Act, 1961 and n otice u/s. 153C of the Act is issued for A.Y. 2012­13, 2013­14, 2015­16, 2016­17 and 2017­18 accordingly. 4.3 Upon receipt of the satisfaction note referred to above, the writ­ applicant filed his objections dated 15.10.2019 as under:­ From: Shri Jitendra Mansukhlal Adesara Prop. M/s. Amrut Jewellers Vishwakarma Chambers, Mandvi Chowk, Soni Bazar, Rajkot 360 001 PAN:ACEPA7985N 15th October2019 To, The Assistant Commissioner of Income­tax, Central Circle­2, Rajkot. Respected Sir, Re: Satisfaction note for initiating proceedings u/s. 153C of the Income­tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years 2012­ 13 to 2017­18 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Sub: Objection (i) against satisfaction recorded and (ii) initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Income­tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2012­13 to 2017­18 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ In connections with the above, I submit as under: 1.0 I have been served with the notices u/s. 153C of the Income­tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the “Act”) dated 12.09.2019 requiring me to file return of income for Assessment Year 2012­13 to 2017­18. In this connection at the outset it is submitted that after receipt of the above notice, I had vide letter dated 01.10.2019 requested to provide a copy of the 'Satisfaction note' recorded by the AO of searched person, based on which you had informed an objective opinion in consonance with the provisions of section 153C of the Act to satisfy yourself that (a) the bullion or other other valuable article or thing seized or requisitioned belongs to the assessee (who is other than the person referred to in section 153A); (b) that the assets seized have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other Page 7 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER person (being the assessee) for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted. 2.0 With reference to the above, vide letter dated 09.10.2019 your good self has furnished the copy of Satisfaction note recorded on 12.09.2019.Since the satisfaction note is based on incorrect facts and materials and as it suffers from serious legal, factual as well as procedural, flaws, the proceedingsinitiated u/s. 153C of the Act for the assessment years 2012­13 to 2017­18 deserves to be dropped. 3.0 The facts of the case in brief and objections against the satisfaction recorded are as under: 3.1 Facts of the case in brief: (i) Due to declaration of election in the state of Gujarat, code of conduct was imposed with effect from 25.10.2017. (ii)Two couriers were searched at the Airport of Rajkot on 27.10.2017 and parcel of 25 KG of gold was seized by the Deputy Director of Income­tax, Investigation­1, Rajkot (herein after referred to as the “DDIT”). Candidly and spontaneously,they admitted that the consignments were sent by the different consigners of Delhi, Hyderabad and other cities and were to be delivered to Rajkot based consignees. Thus, the parcel / consignment of Gold was not belonged to them. (iii) In order to verify the facts of the case DDIT summoned majority/ all the consignees on different dates and their statements were recorded in post search inquiries wherein all the consignees have accepted the version of courier and they have submitted all the requisite information as demanded in the summons to prove the genuineness of transactions. (iv) As regards the nature of transaction, consignees have, depending upon the facts of each case stated / asserted that it is either related to (i) Job Work (making of ornaments), (ii) Purchase (iii) Sales return; (iv) repairing / polishing work etc. and as stated earlier, all necessary third­party confirmations were submitted, which are on record. (v) Both the courier, from whose possession Gold was found / seized have requested the appropriate authority for release of parcel of the consignees as per the provisions of section 132B of the Act vide letter dated 23.11.2017 as the nature and source of Gold seized was explained. However, despite laps of 120 days, nothing has been heard Page 8 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER and gold seized was not released. (vi) Consignees have filed their return of income for FY 2017­18 relevant to Assessment Year 2018­19 as per the provisions of section 139 of the Act and in all cases notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued before 30th September 2019. The cases must be selected for scrutiny for verification of claim of gold found / seized from courier. (vii) Thus, it is hereby emphasized that in order to verify the genuineness of transactions / gold seized, cases of all consignees are selected for scrutiny by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for AY 2018­19. (viii) Thereafter, in utter surprise, all the consignees were again served with the Notice u/s 153C of the Act for AY 2012­13 to 2017­ 18. (ix) After receipt of the above stated notices for six assessment yeas, all the consignees have requested to avail satisfaction note (i) which was recorded by AO of person searched and (ii) AO of person other than the person searched i.e. the assessee, recorded prior to issue of notice u/s 153C. The said satisfactions dated 12.09.2019 were communicated on 01.10.2019. 3.2 Objection against the satisfaction recorded and issue of notices u/s 153C of the Act for AY 2012­13 to 2017­18 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ (i) At the outset it is submitted that in the cases of search, the AO of persons searched must issue notice u/s 153A of the Act for the six years prior to the year in which search took place. (ii) However, in case the asset / gold bullion etc. found or seized is to be belong to any other person, i.e. other than the person searched, than the AO of person searched has first to draw satisfaction and transfer the said materials / gold seized to the AO of that other person. Thereafter, the AO of that other person has to satisfy himself that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made. Thus, in this case there is no mandatory requirement to issue notice blindly or irrespective of materials bearing on determination of the total income. Here in this case, on verification of the satisfaction note the AO has nowhere mentioned or stated that the gold seized / Page 9 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER under consideration / any incriminating materials seized relates to those six years i.e. AY 2012­13 to 2017­18. (iii) Therefore, in absence of that specific satisfaction, which is prerequisite for issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act, issue of notice for those six years i.e. AY 2012­13 to 2017­18 is beyond the jurisdiction and bad in law. (iv) It may not be out of place to reiterate that before recoding satisfaction, the AO must establish a co­relation of incriminating materials / valuable or gold seized from the person searched with the concerned assessment years for which notice u/s. 153C had to be issued. Since this requirement u/s. 153C is essential for assessment under that section, it becomes as jurisdictional fact. In the case under consideration the gold was seized in AY 2018­19 and for verification of genuineness of transactions, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has already been issued. It is also a fact that there are no other materials which may show or demonstrate any connection with AYs 2012­13 to 2017­18. Under the circumstances, notice issued for those years is bad in law as there is no incriminating materials or unexplained cash or gold for those years. (vii) Without prejudice to the above, in the case under consideration, it may not be out of place to mention that no incriminating material for the years under consideration (i.e. AY 2012­13 to AY 2017­18) were found or seized and assessments in all the cases have become final u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thus no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of recording of satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act for the said years and accordingly these proceedings did not abate in proceedings u/s 153C of the Act and the assessment being completed are now time barred, therefore, notice issued u/s 153C of the Act are beyond jurisdiction and therefore requires to be dropped and the same may kindly be dropped. (x) Thirdly, to reduce infructuous & unnecessary proceedings under the Act in the cases where search has been conducted and cash and other assets are seized during the election period, and where no evidence is available and / or investigation is required, for any assessment year other than the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made, under such circumstances, CBDT circular No. 10/2012 dated 31.12.2012 (Copy attached at page 111 of common paper­book) is relevant as per which the AO should refrain himself from issue of notice u/s 153C / 153A of the Act for irrelevant period. In the Satisfaction note, the AO has clearly satisfied that, the interception was made at Rajiot airport by the AIU on 2.10.2017 during their duty related to Election Expenditure Monitoring. In the case under Page 10 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER consideration, the gold was found / seized in AY 2018­19 and no other proof or evidence in available for preceding six years. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law and requires to be dropped and may kindly be dropped. For ready reference copy of Schedule for the General Election to the Legislative Assembly of Gujarat, 2017 dated 25.10.2017 published by the Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Election Commission is attached at page 112 to 117 of common paper­book. Though the election period is not defined in the Circular, but it can be believed that the election period starts when the schedule has been notified for public at large and code of conduct starts from that date. Further here it is important to notice that after declaration of election, the Department carried out inquiry at Airport, Rajkot and found the Gold under consideration form courier. Therefore, on this ground also the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law. (xi) The AO under para 8 of the Satisfaction Note had held that the parcels containing gold was sent for job work purpose. However, simultaneously the same AO had issued notice to the carriers (against whom he had initiated proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act). In the notice issued to the carriers (two individuals), the AO has inquired about the source of the gold and if the same does not belong to them, they are required to furnish the name and address of the persons to whom it belongs. Interestingly, even before receiving any reply or satisfying about the nomenclature of the transaction, the AO satisfied himself in the satisfaction note that the gold was meant for job work. (xii) Further, in the satisfaction note, vide para 9, the AO had satisfied himself by recording that, the documents furnished to substantiate the transaction by both the parties fail to prove that genuineness of the transaction and the documents and submission made by both the parties which is nothing but more than a futile effort based on after thoughts for coloring the unaccounted transaction vis­à­vis transfer of unaccounted gold bullion. Thus, it is concluded by the AO in the satisfaction note that, the documents to prove the genuineness of the transaction is an afterthought. However, to draw such a conclusion, he must hold the documents as false and incorrect, which he has never done. The only serious flaw in the documents is the failure to produce form NO 402/403, which is not mandatory and failure of producing the same, nowhere holds a contrary premise. Further, this may be only a technical and venial breach for which the offence is vetted by compounding the same. Further, there is no violation so far as Income tax proceedings are concerned as this may be a mere technical offence under state law, i.e. VAT/GST. Barring this, the AO has failed to quote a single instance in support of his satisfaction that the assessee is resorting to coloring the Page 11 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER unaccounted transaction. (xiii) The truth is that, the gold in question was part of sale/supply for which copy of invoice/voucher/delivery challan, as the case may be had been issued by consigner. Documentary evidence of such invoice/voucher/challan along with proof of payment or indirect tax, stock register showing availability of stock and confirmation of the consignors had already been placed on record during post­search inquiry. Therefore, the satisfaction derived by the AO is biased and predetermined. (xv) Furthermore, for the validity of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act, two separate satisfactions has to be recorded, i.e. (i) recording of satisfaction by the AO of person searched that assets/documents seized belongs or pertains tot he “Other Person” and (ii) recording of satisfaction by he AO of “other person” that said assets/documents pertains to belongs to such “Other Person”. Therefore, it is a pre­ requisite to record the satisfaction by the AO at two levels, even if the AO of the person searched and that of “other person” is same. In the instant case, it is understood that the satisfaction has been recorded at once in the single note in my case, wherein, it is alleged that the AO is satisfied that the gold seized from the courier belongs to the assessee and the same have a bearing on the determination of total income of the assessee for AYs 2012­13 to 2017­18. Therefore, in the absence of any specific and separate satisfactions recorded in the case of searched person, i.e. courier and other person, i.e. me, impugned notices issued are invalid. (xvii) Thus, it is clear that notices u/s.153C of the Act had been issued without following directions of CBDT as above and hence, the same is illegal. (xviii) Notwithstanding to the above, even in the case where valid satisfactions recorded at both the levels, indiscriminate issue of notices u/s. 153C of the Act for all the six assessment years are not valid. The AO of “other person” may issue notice u/s.153C of any assessment year comprising from block of six years, if there is incriminating material/asset for such year. Where single/combined satisfaction note has been prepared for all the six assessment years without referring year­wise incriminating material/asset bearing on the total income of all such six assessment years, the proceeding initiated u/s.153C of the Act deserves to be quashed in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Canyon Financial Services Ltd. (2018) 253 Taxman 341 (SC). (xix) It is also observed from para 8 of the satisfaction note that the AO is not clear regarding the value of gold seized having bearing on Page 12 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER whose income? Whether it is the courier person or consignor (sender) or consignee (receiver) Para­8 of the Satisfaction note is reproduced as under: 8. During the post search proceedings following parcles containing Fine Gold weighing 622.48 grams valued at Rs. 1837561/­ as per valuation report is seized. The said parcel sent by Chhunnu Mal Mahendra Jain of Delhi to below mentioned party/parties of Rajkot mentioned in Column B for job work. (xx) Undoubted fact is that the parcel of Gold Ornament was sent by Chhunnu Mal Mahendra Jain of Delhi for job work and the same was seized from the courier namely Jai Mata Di Air Service. Since, the Gold parcel was sent by Chhunnu Mal Mahendra Jain for job­work (making of gold ornaments) under the cover of issue voucher/delivery challan, it cannot be said that the said Gold seized belongs to me and that value of such seized gold is having bearing on my taxable income. Hence, when it is clear that the Gold seized was sent by Chhunnu Mal Mahendra Jain, Delhi and the same fact had also been confirmed by sender, issue of notices u/s.153C of the Act in my case is infructuous. (xxi) Further, by issuing notices u/s.153C of the Act in my case explicitly clears that no such notices have been issued or shall be issued to the sender since the pre­requisite condition for issue of notice u/s. 153C is that the concerned asset seized has to be handed over by the AO of “person searched” tot he AO of “other person” to which asset belongs to. Since, the asset seized cannot be handed over to multiple AO, ti implies that no satisfaction has been recorded in the case of “Sender/Consignor Assessee” and in that case, source of Gold sent by the sender/consignor stands explained. Once, the source of asset in the hands of sender/consignor is explained, there is no question of proceeding towards assessment in the case of me being receiver of metal for job­work purpose. (xxii) In view of the above, in the satisfaction note, it is not clear as to whether the seized asset has any bearing on the inocme of the person covered u/s. 153C, i.e., me. (xxiii) Lastly, it is seen that satisfaction recorded in all the consignees are verbatim without considering facts in each case. It is observed that in various cases where the parcel of Gold was sent by the consignors on account of transaction of sale/purchase return etc. but the satisfaction note contains that the same was for job­work. Therefore, on this ground also, issue of notices in mechanical manner is objected. 4. Considering the above facts and judicial pronouncement, it is clear that there is a failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to satisfy that the gold seized belonged to the assessee, particularly when Page 13 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER all the relevant materials and proofs were on record and transaction was settled by banking channel. Thus, apart from saying that both the parties failed to prove the genuineness of transaction, the AO has nothing in his possession to establish that he was satisfied that it was a fit case for issuing of notice under section 153C. The satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer is neither adequate nor proper and since it does not meet the requirement of the concept of satisfaction as used in section 153C of the Act, initiation of proceedings under section 153C itself was bad­in­law and therefore notice u/s.153C of the Act is required to be cancelled being invalid and bad in law. Under the circumstances it is prayed to kindly drop the proceedings and oblige. 5. The assessee further begs to know the outcome of the proceedings in the hands of the seller/ owner of stock, since he is the consignor and till the goods reach the premises of the assessee (consignee), it can be reasonably held that the same belongs to the consignor. Under the circumstances, the outcome/ perspective of the Department towards the consignor is of utmost importance to the assessee. It is also prayed that necessary inquiry may kindly be carried out by issuing commission so that the clarity of the matter can be brought on record. 6. Lastly, the assessee prays to your good self to expedite the proceeding and request to release the seized Gold by considering the release application filed by the Courier persons before appropriate authority and decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Nadim Dilipbhai Panjvani Vs. ITO in SCA No.13374 of 2015 (copy attached at page 144 of common paper­book). 4.4 The objections referred to above were considered by the respondent and vide order dated 22.10.2019 those came to be rejected. 4.5 Thereafter, a notice was served to the writ­applicant dated 12/09/2019 under Section­143(2) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018­19. 5. Being dissatisfied with the afore­said action, the writ­applicant is here before this Court with the present writ­application. 6. On 26.11.2019, a Co­ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order. Page 14 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER 1. Mr. Darshan Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing the impugned notices for assessment years 2012­13 to 2017­18, to submit that it is recorded therein that the parcels seized during the course of search contained a parcel sent by Chhunnu Mal M. Jain of Delhi to the petitioner for job work. It was submitted that on the basis of the above, the Assessing Officer has recorded that he is satisfied that the gold articles seized from the search party belongs to and information in this regard relates to the petitioner who is the assessee, other than the person under section 153A of the Act. It was submitted that in the present case all that is seized is parcels containing gold. No books of account or documents have been seized. It was submitted that, therefore, reference to amended section 153C(1)(b) by the Assessing Officer is misconceived, inasmuch as, in the absence of any books of account or document having been seized or requisitioned, there is no question of the same pertaining to or any information contained therein relating to the petitioner. It was submitted that from the satisfaction note it is evident that the gold has been sent to the petitioner for job work. It was submitted that the expression “job work” has not been defined in the Income Tax Act but has been defined under sub­section (68) of section 2 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to mean any treatment or process undertaken by a person on goods belonging to another registered person and the expression “job worker” shall be construed accordingly. It was submitted that, therefore, from the definition of “job work” it is evident that the goods belong to another person and not the person to whom it is sent for job work. It was submitted that, therefore, the question of the seized gold belonging to the petitioner does not arise, and hence, the impugned notice under section 153C of the Act lacks validity. 2. The learned advocate made an alternative submission that in this case the search was conducted on 27.10.2017, that is, in the financial year 2017­18 relatable to assessment year 2018­19. It was submitted that, therefore, if the gold seized is incriminating material against the petitioner, the same relates to assessment year 2018­19 in respect of which proceedings of scrutiny assessment have already been initiated. It was submitted that, therefore also, the impugned notices under section 153C are not sustainable. 3. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, Issue Notice returnable on 16th December, 2019. By way of ad­interim relief, further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notices dated 12.9.2019 issued by the respondent under section 153C of the Act for assessment years 2012­13 to 2017­18 are hereby stayed. Page 15 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER Direct service is permitted. Submissions on behalf of the writ­applicant:­ 7. Mr. Darshan Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the writ­ applicant vehemently submitted that the jewellery in question was seized under Section­132 of the Act in the course of a search conducted at the Rajkot Airport on 27.10.2017, and therefore, the case of the writ­ applicant would fall under Section­173(2)(a) of the Act. He would submit that as per Section­153C (2)(a) of the Act, if any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A of the Act, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. He would argue that as the jewellery seized at the Rajkot Airport does not belong to the writ­applicant, the initiation of proceedings under Section­153C could be said to be without jurisdiction. 8. According to Mr. Patel, the gold which came to be seized at the Rajkot Airport belongs to one Shri Chhunumal M. Jain. He is the absolute owner of the gold. He would submit that the gold was sent by Chhunumal M. Jain to the writ­applicant for doing job work. After completion of the job work, the gold was to be sent back to Chhunumal M. Jain. 9. Mr. Patel would submit that the fact that the gold was sent for job work is not in dispute as the same is evident on perusal of the satisfaction note itself. Mr. Patel would submit that the search was conducted on 27.10.2017 and therefore, even assuming without Page 16 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER admitting that the seized material is of the ownership of the writ­ applicant, the same should have been added in the regular course of the assessment. As the date of search is 27.10.2017, the relevant assessment year would be A.Y. 2018­19 and for that matter, a notice under Section­ 143(2) had already been issued on 12.09.2019. 10. He would argue that as the relevant assessment year is A.Y. 2018­ 19, for which a scrutiny notice under Section­143(2) of the Act came to be issued on 12.09.2019, the invoking of the provision under Section­ 153C of the Act for earlier 06 years is absolutely without jurisdiction. 11. Mr. Patel would submit that in the case on hand, the provisions of Section­153C(b) are not applicable as no books of account and documents were seized or requisitioned. 12. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Patel prays that there being merit in his application, the same be allowed and the impugned proceedings be quashed. 13. On the other­hand, this writ­application and all other connected writ­applications have been vehemently opposed by Mr. Manish Bhatt, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revenue. 14. Mr. Bhatt would submit that there is no merit in any of the submissions canvassed on behalf of the writ­applicant. Mr. Bhatt has raised a preliminary contention as regards the maintainability of this writ­application. According to Mr. Bhatt, the matter is at the stage of notice issued under Section­153C of the Act. According to Mr. Bhatt, if any assessment order ultimately is passed, it would be open for the writ­ applicant to file an appeal against such assessment order. He would Page 17 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER argue that there being an alternative efficacious remedy available to the writ­applicant, this writ­application may not be entertained. 15. In this regard Mr. Bhatt, seeks to place significant reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income­ tax, Gujarat Vs. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani; [2013] 35 taxmann.com 580 (SC). 16. Mr. Bhatt further submitted that the Assessing Officer is more than prima­facie satisfied as is evident from the satisfaction note that the gold seized at the Rajkot Airport has a bearing on the determination of the total income of the writ­applicant. Mr. Bhatt, would submit that there is no merit in the contention canvassed on behalf of the writ­applicant that the Assessing Officer himself has accepted that the gold was sent by Chhunumal Jain for the purpose of job work. According to Mr. Bhatt, the contents of Paragraph­8 of the satisfaction note are completely misconstrued by the learned counsel appearing for the writ­applicant. What is important is the satisfaction as recorded in paragraph­9 of the satisfaction note. 17. Mr. Bhatt, invited the attention of this Court to few relevant averments made in the affidavit­in­reply filed on behalf of the respondent. The averments reads as under:­ 3. At the further outset, I most respectfully submit that the petition is filed at a pre­mature stage in as much as only notices under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act ('the Act' for short) for assessment year 2012­13 to 2017­18 have been issued. In the event, the petitioner is aggrieved by the assessment/ reassessment, alternative efficacious remedy is available by way of an Appeal to the CIT(A) and thereafter to the Appellate Tribunal as per the provisions of the Act. On this ground alone, I humbly submit that the petition is devoid of any merits and be summarily rejected. Page 18 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER 4. At the outset, I submit that Airport Intelligence Unit, Rajkot found that Suresh Kumar from Jai Mata Di Air Services and Jagdish Prasad from Bright Courier had come to the Rajkot Airport on 27.10.2017 to get delivery of 3 and 2 parcels respectively which had come through Jet Airways Flight from Hyderabad and Delhi. The above parcels were containing 70 small parcels mentioning the names and mobile numbers of the parties/ persons to whom such parcels were to be delivered. Upon inquiry being made, the above two persons failed to furnish the details of ownership of such parcels ad the relevant documents to prove genuineness of the Gold intercepted. Firstly, the statement of Shri Suresh Kumar Jaikishan Bangarwa under oath u/s.131(1A) r.w.s. 131 of the Act came to be recorded by ADIT (Inv), Unit­II, Rajot on 27.10.2017 at the Rajkot Airpor. Shri Sureshkumar was asked to produce the supportive evidence in support of the ownership of the parcels like bills, vouchers, form no.402/403, etc, but failed to submit anything in this regard. Subsequently, search proceedings 132(1) of the Act were initiated in the case of Suresh Kumar. During the course of search action under Section 132(1) of the Act, Gold/Bullion/Jewelry weighing 24383.95 gms. Valued at Rs.7,33,40,283/­ was seized. The said Shri Suresh Kumar in his tatement recorded on oath under Section 132(4) of the Act stated that the name of the senders ad receivers were mentioned on the small parcel. Accordingly, it was found that one parcel bearing No.J­15 was sent to the petitioner being the proprietor of Amrut Jewellers. The said parcel containing gold was weighed at 622.48 gms. and valued at Rs.18,37,561/­. The said parcel was sent by Chhunnu Mal Mahendra Jain, Delhi to the Amrut Jewellers, a proprietory concern of petitioner. On the basis of the above material, the Assessing Officer of the searched person recorded satisfaction to the effect that the seized gold weighing 622.48 gms. valued at Rs.18,37,561/­ belongs to the petitioner and the information contained on the parcels, statements recorded relates to the petitioner. 5. I humbly submit that upon receipt of the above documents/ assets seized, the respondent being the Assessing Officer of the petitioner recorded satisfaction to the effect that the gold seized and statement recorded/information have a bearing on the determination of the total income of the petitioner and accordingly, issued the impugned notices under Section 153C of the Act for Assessment Years 2012­13 to 2017­18. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the para wise reply to the contentions raised by the petitioner is as under. (i) With reference to paragraphs (I)1 to 8 of the petition, the contents Page 19 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER to the extent it does not form part of the record are denied. I submit that the impugned notices are issued after following the due procedural requirements as contemplated under the Act and after recording satisfaction and, therefore, the impugned notices are legal and valid. (ii) With reference to paragraphs II(1) to II (9), the petitioner has contended that the gold seized at Rajkot Airport does not belong to the petitioner as Chhunnu Mal Mahendra Jain had sent the same for job work and therefore, initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act is bad in law and the seized gold does not have any bearing on the income of the petitioner. The petitioner has also contended that the seized gold bars belong to Chhunnu Mal Mahendra Jain being the owner of seized gold. The above contentions are self­serving, baseless and contrary to the facts and denied. I submit that the Assessing Officer of the searched person has clearly recorded satisfaction to the effect that the gold seized belongs to the petitioner in as much as the parcel carrying such gold bars bears name of Amrut Jewellers, petitioner's proprietory concern. Such being the case, the petitioner cannot contend that such parcel containing gold does not belong to the petitioner. The petitioner's contention that the seized gold was sent for job work as evident from the satisfaction note is not correct and misleading. I submit that Para 8 of the satisfaction note which states that the seized gold was sent for job work is nothing but the statement of the respective parties that the seized gold was sent for job work. The assessing officer has not recorded satisfaction to the effect that the seized gold was sent for job work and the same is evident from para 9 of the satisfaction note. Para 9 of the satisfaction note clearly refers to the appraisal report as well as the statement recorded by the investigation wing. If para 8 of the satisfaction note is read with Para 9, it is clear that satisfaction is recorded to the effect that the documents and submissions made by both the parties failed to prove genuineness of transaction and made futile efforts to colour the unaccounted transaction. From the above, it is clear that the factum of gold being sent for job work was entirely disbelieved. Moreover, both the parties have failed to produce Form 402/ 403 of GST which is statutory requirement for the interstate transfer of goods for job work or sales. On the conspectus of the aforesaid facts, a prima facie satisfaction is recorded that the gold seized weighing 622.48 gms. valued at Rs.18,37,561/­ belongs to the petitioner and the information and evidence relates to the petitioner and accordingly, the impugned notices have been issued under Section 153C of the Act. I submit that Page 20 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER there is incriminating material which goes to show that the seized gold belongs to the petitioner and the information/ statement relates to the petitioner. The case on merits will be dealt with during the course of assessment proceedings after affording adequate opportunities of hearing to the petitioner. (iii) With reference to paragraphs II (10) to II(11), the petitioner has contended that addition can only be made in the relevant Assessment Year 2018­19 and not in any other Assessment Year and therefore, invoking of the provisions under Section 153C for assessing six assessment years is completely unjust. I submit that once proceedings are initiated under Section 153C, the assessing officer has to follow the mandate of the statute to reopen the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted. Therefore, the assessing officer has issued the impugned notice for A.Y. 2012­13 to 2017­18. I submit that assessment under Section 143(3) r.w. 153C of the Act for A.Y.2018­19 came to be framed on 19.12.2019. The assessing officer has made additions on protective basis. (iv) With reference to paragraphs II(12) to II(13), the petitioner has contended that no books of accounts or documents are seized or requisitioned and therefore, invocation of Section 153(1)(b) is baseless. The afore­said contention is self serving and contrary to the plain language of clause (b) to Section 153C(1) of the Act. I submit that a document is nothing but a piece of written, printed or electronic record that provides information or evidence. The assessing officer of the searched person has clearly recorded satisfaction to the effect that the information contained on the document being the parcel and courier on the document being the parcel and courier receipt pertain/relates to the petitioner. (v) With reference to paragraphs II(14) to II(18), the petitioner has reiterated that the absolute owner of the seized gold is Chhunnu Mal Mahendra Jain and the gold does not belong to the petitioner. The petitioner has also contended that the respondent has supplemented the satisfaction recorded by him at a later stage while disposing of the objections. The aforesaid contention is erroneous, misleading and denied. I submit that the Assessing Officer of the searched person has clearly recorded satisfaction to the effect that the seized gold belongs to the petitioner and the statement/ information relates to the petitioner. I reiterate the Page 21 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER submissions made in the forgoing paragraphs. 7. In view of the above, I submit that the impugned notices are legal and valid. The petition may kindly not be entertained and the same may be rejected with costs to the answering respondent. 18. Mr. Bhatt seeks to rely on a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Super Malls Private Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax­8, New Delhi rendered in the Civil Appeal Nos.2006­2007 of 2020 decided on 5th March 2020. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Bhatt prays that there being no merit in this writ­application, the same may be rejected. ANALYSIS:­ 19. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is – whether the impugned notice under Section­ 153C of the Act should be quashed? 20. Our endeavour should be to consider whether the materials collected at the time of the search at the Rajkot Airport falls within the ambit of the expression “belongs to” or “pertains to” or “relates to”. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side, we may first take note of section 153C of the Act, which reads as under:­ 2.2.2 UPTO 01.06.2015: Assessment of income of any other person. ­ 153C. ­[(1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person ­­[and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice Page 22 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub­ section (1) of section 153A]:] 2.2.3 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2015: Assessment of income of any other person. ­ ­­ 153C. ­[(1)] ­­[Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139. section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,­­ (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, ~ belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, or any information contained therein, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person ] ­­[and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance ­with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub­section (1) of section 153A] :] 21. A perusal of the above noted provisions would reveal that in the case of search action, carried out under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, prior to 1.6.2015, if any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, or books of accounts or documents, seized or requisitioned \"belongs\" or \"belong\" to a person other than the person referred to section 153A, then the AO of the searched person while passing the assessment order under section 153A or prior to that, will have to record his satisfaction about those documents, and if such documents would reveal any undisclosed income of the person other than the searched person, then he will transmit those documents along with his satisfaction note to the AO having jurisdiction over that other person. The jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act prior to 1.6.2015 Page 23 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER could be invoked only if the material seized during the course of search in the case of third­person \"belongs to\" to some persons other than the searched person. However, after 1.6.2015, the Legislature has categorized two situations. If the recovery of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized or requisitioned belongs to person other than the searched person, then section 153C would be justified. However, with regard to the recovery of any books of accounts or documents, seized or requisitioned, then if they pertain to other person, or any information contained therein relates to person other than the searched person, then the action under section 153C could be there. The scope of section 153C after 1.6.2015 has been enlarged; i.e. if a person at whose premises search was carried out, has been maintaining certain details in his regular day­to­day business, and that contain certain information exhibiting the undisclosed income of the person other than the searched person, then the action under section 153C could be justified. But prior to 1.6.2015, the documents ought to be “belonged to” person other than the searched person. There is a clear distinction between both the conditions. Subsequent to 1.6.2015, the information embedded in the document is sufficient for taking action under section 153C, but prior to 1.6.2015 action under section 153C could be taken if documents belong to the person other than the searched person was found during the course of search. 22. Before proceedings further we may first deal with the preliminary objections raised by Mr. Bhatt, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revenue as regards the maintainability of this writ­application is concerned. As noted above, in this regard reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaybhai N. Chandrani (Supra). The said case, travelled to the Supreme Court from this very High Court. This High Court set aside the show­cause notice issued by Page 24 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER the Assessing Officer under Section­153C of the Act, 1961. The respondent – assessee purchased a plot of land from a co­operative housing society. A search was conducted under Section­132 of the Act in the premises of the society. During the search, certain documents were seized under Section­132 of the Act. Upon scrutiny, it was found that the seized documents reflected the names of certain individuals including the assessee therein. Accordingly, for further proceedings, the Assessing Authority transmitted the seized documents to the jurisdictional Assessing Authority in whose jurisdiction the assessee was being assessed. After receipt of the said information/documents, the Assessing Authority recorded a satisfaction note that he had reason to believe that a case of escapement of income may exist and in such circumstances, issued notice under Section­153C of the Act. Upon receipt of the notice, the assessee straightway come to this Court and this Court quashed the notice. The revenue being dissatisfied with the order passed by this Court went in appeal before the Supreme Court. While allowing the appeal filed by the revenue, the Supreme Court held as under:­ 12. We have gone through the documents on record including the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Authority and the Show Cause Notices. We have also perused the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. 13. In the instant case, it transpires from the record that the jurisdictional Assessing Authority, upon having a reason to believe that the documents seized indicate escapement of income, has issued Show Cause Notices under Section 153C to the assessee for reassessment of his income during the assessment years 2001­2002 to 2006­2007. Thereafter, upon request of the assessee, the Assessing Authority has furnished him with the copies of documents seized under Section 132A. The assessee being dissatisfied with the said documents instead of filing his explanation/reply to the Show Cause Notices, has filed a Writ Petition before the High Court impugning the said notices. 14. In our considered view, at the said stage of issuance of the notices under Section 153C, the assessee could have addressed his grievances and explained his stand to the Assessing Authority by filing an Page 25 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER appropriate reply to the said notices instead of filing the Writ Petition impugning the said notices. It is settled law that when an alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved party, it must exhaust the same before approaching the Writ Court. In Bellary Steels & Alloys Ltd. v. CCT, (2009) 17 SCC 547, this Court had allowed the assessee therein to withdraw the original Writ Petition filed before the High Court as the said proceedings came to be filed against the show­cause notice and observed that the High Court should not have interfered in the matter as the Writ Petition was filed without even reply to the show cause notice. This Court further observed as follows: “3.…In the circumstances, we could have dismissed these civil appeals only on the ground of failure to exhaust statutory remedy, but for the fact that huge investments involving the large number of industries is in issue.” 15. We are fortified by the decision of this Court in Indo Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. v. ITO, (2002) 10 SCC 444, wherein the assessee had approached this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court which had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the assessee wherein challenge was made to the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Authority on the ground that alternative remedy was available to the assessee. This Court concurred with the findings and conclusions reached by the High Court and dismissed the said appeal with the following observations: “5. This and the other facts cannot be taken up for consideration by this Court for the first time. In our opinion, the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that it is appropriate for the appellants to file a reply to the show­cause notice and take whatever defence is open to them.” 16. In the present case, the assessee has invoked the Writ jurisdiction of the High Court at the first instance without first exhausting the alternate remedies provided under the Act. In our considered opinion, at the said stage of proceedings, the High Court ought not have entertained the Writ Petition and instead should have directed the assessee to file reply to the said notices and upon receipt of a decision from the Assessing Authority, if for any reason it is aggrieved by the said decision, to question the same before the forum provided under the Act. 17. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the construction that is placed by the High Court on Section 153C, we set aside the impugned judgment and order. Further, we grant time to the assessee, if it so desires, to file reply/objections, if any, as contemplated in the said notices within 15 Page 26 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER days' time from today. If such reply/objections is/are filed within time granted by this Court, the Assessing Authority shall first consider the said reply/objections and thereafter direct the assessee to file the return for the assessment years in question. We make it clear that while framing the assessment order, the Assessing Authority will not be influenced by any observations made by the High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition. If, for any reason, the assessment order goes against the assessee, he/it shall avail and exhaust the remedies available to him/it under the Act, 1961. 23. Thus, the Supreme Court took the view that the assessee should have filed his reply/objections to the satisfaction note and if any assessment order is passed, it would be open for the assessee to avail and exhaust the remedy available to him under the Act, 1961. The only distinguishing feature in the case before the Supreme Court compared to the case on hand is that in the case on hand, the reply/objections were filed by the writ­applicant and those were duly considered and rejected, whereas, in the case of Vijaybhai N. Chandrani (supra) even without filing any reply/objections, the assessee came straight to the High Court with a writ­application. However, what is important to note is that the Supreme Court made itself very clear that the assessee should file his reply/objections and thereafter, file the return for the assessment year in question. As regard the assessment order, the Supreme Court said that it would be open for the writ­applicant to avail and exhaust the remedy available to him under the Act. 24. We could have declined to entertain this writ­application relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaybhai N. Chandrani (supra) relegating the writ­applicant to avail and exhaust the remedies available to him under the Act, 1961. However, even on merits, we find no case in favour of the writ­applicant. An exhaustive reading of the satisfaction note referred to above would indicate that the Assessing Officer was satisfied and it is specifically mentioned therein Page 27 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER that the gold belongs to the writ­applicant and was not sent by Chhunnumal for the purpose of job work and the documents so seized pertains to the writ­applicant/other persons, therefore, it cannot be said that the mandatory requirement of Section­153C of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case have not been complied with. At the cost of repetition, we once again quote the relevant averments made in the satisfaction note. 9. Further appraisal report and the details of investigation done in the matter and statement recorded by the Investigation wing is examined and it is found that the documents furnished to substantiate the transaction by both the parties are failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the documents and submissions made by both these parties nothing but more than a futile effort based on after thoughts for coloring the unaccounted transaction vis­à­vis transfer of unaccounted gold bullion. 10. In view of above, I am satisfied that the above seized Gold articles from above mentioned parcel nos containing Fine Gold weighing 622.48 grams valued at Rs. 1837561/­ seized from searched party named Shri Suresh Kumar Jaikishan Bangarwa (PAN­ DBBPK4089Q) / Shri Jagdish Prasad (PAN EKHPP3432A) covered u/s. 153A of the I T Act belongs to and information in this regard and is related to Jitendra Mansukhlal Adesara Prop. Of Amrut Jewellers PAN: ACEPA7985N i.e. assessee being other than the person 153A of the Act. 11. As per amended section 153C(1)(b), where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the proceedings u/s 153C shall be initiated. 12. Thus I am satisfied that the gold seized and statement recorded have a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee, Jitendra Mansukhlal Adesara Prop. Of Amrut Jewellers, Hence, I am sttisfied that it is a fit case for issuing notice u/s. 153C of the Income­tax Act, 1961 and n otice u/s. 153C of the Act is issued for A.Y. 2012­13, 2013­14, 2015­16, 2016­17 and 2017­18 accordingly. Page 28 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER 25. The satisfaction note referred to above reveals that initially i.e. 27.10.2017, it was a case of survey, which was converted to search. During the course of search, the statements under Section­132(4) were recorded on oath wherein as no proper or satisfactory explanation for gold was given, the said assets were seized. 26. As per Section­153A r/w. Section 153C, such being the position, notice is mandatorily required to be issued to furnish return of income in respect of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted. Since the search is dated 27.10.2017, the preceding six assessment years would be A.Y.2012­13 to 2017­18 relevant to previous years 2011­12 to 2016­17 for which the notice under Section 153C has to be issued. Further, as per Section 153C(2) notice is required to be issued for the assessment year relevant to the search i.e. A.Y. 2018­19. In the case of other persons as referred to in Section 153C the reference to the date of initiation of search under Section 132 shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account, assets etc. by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other persons. 27. A statement on oath is required to be recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act which is “during the course of the search.......”. Thus, a statement on oath under Section 132(4) of the Act has its own evidentiary value. In the instance case, in the statement as recorded under Section 132(4), no credible evidence was produced by the searched person viz. Shri Sureshkumar Bangarwa. During the search proceeding, 70 parcels were seized, which also contained some papers related to booking of the same which is a “document”. The said papers Page 29 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER contained relation to the assessee. A “Document”, is nothing but a piece of written, printed or electronic record that provides information or evidence and in the instant case such information was in the form of parcel and courier receipts which pertained or related to the petitioner. In the instant case, therefore, it is case of the department that Jewellery or other valuable article or things seized 'belongs' to the petitioner and also “document” 'pertains' to and that any information contained therein 'relates' to the petitioner. The ingredients of Section 153(1)(a) and (b) both are complied with. 28. In the satisfaction note, it has been recorded that the version put forth by the searched person that the Jewellery being given to the writ­ applicant for job work was found not correct. Further, there was complete failure in producing the Forms 402 and 403 respectively of the GST which is a statutory requirement for the interstate transafer of goods for job work or sales. 29. As per the mandate of Section 153C, notice is required to be issued for the A.Y. 2012­13 to 2017­18. In respect of the previous year relevant to the date of search, separate assessment for the A.Y. 2018­19 has already been framed on 19.12.2019 under Section 143(3) r/w. Section 153C of the Act. The writ­applicant has challenged the notice for A.Y. 2018­19 and therefore could be said to have acquiesced to the Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing the notices, even for the six years i.e. A.Y. 2012­13 To 2017­18. 30. The Supreme Court in the case of Super Malls Private Limited (Supra) had the occasion to consider Section­153C of the Act. The relevant observations are as under:­ Page 30 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER 6. This Court had an occasion to consider the scheme of Section 153C of the Act and the conditions precedent to be fulfilled/complied with before issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (supra) as well as by the Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd. (supra). As held, before issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be “satisfied” that, inter alia, any document seized or requisitioned “belongs to” a person other than the searched person. That thereafter, after recording such satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, he may transmit the records/documents/things/papers etc. to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. After receipt of the aforesaid satisfaction and upon examination of such other documents relating to such other person, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer may proceed to issue a notice for the purpose of completion of the assessment under Section 158BD of the Act and the other provisions of Chapter XIV­B shall apply. 6.1 It cannot be disputed that the aforesaid requirements are held to be mandatorily complied with. There can be two eventualities. It may so happen that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is different from the Assessing Officer of the other person and in the second eventuality, the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person is the same. Where the Assessing Officer of the searched person is different from the Assessing Officer of the other person, there shall be a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person and as observed hereinabove that thereafter the Assessing Officer of the searched person is required to transmit the documents so seized to the Assessing Officer of the other person. The Assessing Officer of the searched person simultaneously while transmitting the documents shall forward his satisfaction note to the Assessing Officer of the other person and is also required to make a note in the file of a searched person that he has done so. However, as rightly observed and held by the Delhi High Court in the case of Ganpati Fincap (supra), the same is for the administrative convenience and the failure by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, after preparing and dispatching the satisfaction note and the documents to the Assessing Officer of the other person, to make a note in the file of a searched person, will not vitiate the entire proceedings under Section 153C of the Act against the other person. At the same time, the satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person that the documents etc. so seized during the search and seizure from the searched person belonged to the other person and transmitting such material to the Assessing Officer of the other person is mandatory. However, in the case where the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person is the same, it is sufficient by the Assessing Officer to note in Page 31 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER the satisfaction note that the documents seized from the searched person belonged to the other person. Once the note says so, then the requirement of Section 153C of the Act is fulfilled. In case, where the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person is the same, there can be one satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer, as he himself is the Assessing Officer of the searched person and also the Assessing Officer of the other person. However, as observed hereinabove, he must be conscious and satisfied that the documents seized/recovered from the searched person belonged to the other person. In such a situation, the satisfaction note would be qua the other person. The second requirement of transmitting the documents so seized from the searched person would not be there as he himself will be the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person and therefore there is no question of transmitting such seized documents to himself. 6.2. Now let us consider from the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer, in the present case. Whether there is a sufficient compliance of Section 153C of the Act or not. The satisfaction note reads as under: “Name and address of the assessee : M/s Super Malls (P) Ltd. Sector 12, HUDA, Karnal Regd. Office at 51, Transport Centre Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. PAN : AAICS2163F Status : Company Reasons/Satisfaction note for taking up the case of M/s Super Malls (P) Ltd. Sector­12, HUDA, Karnal Regd. Office at 51, Transport Centre, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The jurisdiction of this case has been assigned to this Office u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the worthy Commissioner of Income Tax­III New Delhi vide order F. No. CITIII/Delhi/Centralization/1012­1312455 dated 15.01.2013. By virtue of the authorization of the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Chandigarh, a search & seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Act was carried out on 08/09.04.2010 at the residential/business premises of Sh. Tejwant Singh & Sh. Ved Parkash Bharti Group of cases, Karnal, Panipat & Delhi and a survey u/s 133A of the IT. Act, 1961 was also carried out at the business premises of M/s Super Mall (P) Ltd. Karnal & New Delhi. During the course of search on 08/09.04.2010 at residence of Sh. Ved Parkash Bharti who is a Director in the assessee company M/s Super Mall (P) Ltd., Pen drives were found and seized as per Annexure­3 from vehicle No. HR06N­0063 parked in front of the residence of Sh. Ved Parkash Bharti. Some documents as per Annexure A­1 were seized after taking print out of the above said pen Page 32 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER drives. These documents contain the details of cash receipt on sale of shop/offices at M/s Super Mall, Karnal also beside other concerns. These documents are required for assessment proceedings. During the statement of Sh. Ved Parkash Bharti at the time of search, he has also stated that these documents pertain to him and M/s Super Mall (P) Ltd., Karnal in which he is Director. In view of the above and as per the provisions of sub­section 91 of Section 153C of the Act, I am satisfied that the document seized from the residence of Sh. Ved Parkash Bharti belongs to a person i.e. Super Mall (P) Ltd., other than the person referred in section 153A. Accordingly, it is directed to issue such person (M/s Super Mall (P) Ltd.) notice and assess and reassess income in accordance with the provision of section 153A of the Act. Dated: 22.02.2013 sd/­ (VED PARKASH KALIA)” From the aforesaid satisfaction note, it emerges that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the documents containing the details of the cash receipts on sale of shop/offices at M/s Super Mall, Karnal belonged to the other person – assessee – M/s Super Mall. He is also satisfied that the documents/pen drive are seized from the searched person. He is also satisfied that the documents so seized from the residence of the searched person/Ved Prakash Bharti belonged to the assessee – the other person. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was satisfied and it is specifically mentioned that the documents so seized belonged to the assessee – the other person. Therefore, it cannot be said that the mandatory requirements of Section 153C of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case, have not been complied with. The satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer clearly states that the documents so seized belonged to the other person – the assessee and not the searched person. Thus, the High Court is justified in observing that the requirement of Section 153C has been fulfilled. On facts, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court on the requirement of Section 153C of the Act being fulfilled by the Assessing Officer before initiating the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act. 31. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that we should not interfere at the stage of show­cause notice under Section­153C of the Act, 1961. Ultimately, if the assessment order goes against the writ­ applicant (assessee), he/it shall avail and exhaust the remedies available to him/it under the Act, 1961. Page 33 of 34 C/SCA/20844/2019 ORDER 32. In the result, all the writ­applications fail and are hereby rejected. Notice issued in each of the writ­applications is hereby discharged. The ad­interim relief granted earlier in each of the writ­application stands vacated forthwith. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (ILESH J. VORA,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 34 of 34 "