Facts
The petitioner, an individual part of the PSY Group, filed his return for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 on 31.07.2014
Source reference: para 4.2Following a search action under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, conducted on 08.02.2024 (Financial Year 2023-24), the respondent issued a notice dated 26.03.2025 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2014-15
Source reference: para 4, 4.2The petitioner challenged the notice primarily on the ground that it was barred by limitation under the statutory scheme governing search assessments
Source reference: para 4.2Issues
Whether the notice issued by the respondent under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2014-15 is barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 153A read with Explanation 1
Source reference: para 7, 8Whether the "search assessment year" (AY 2024-25) should be included or excluded when calculating the ten-year jurisdictional block for reopening assessments
Source reference: para 9, 12.3Law Applied
The court applied Section 153A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which mandates the assessment of six assessment years "immediately preceding" the search year
Source reference: para 10It further applied Explanation 1 to Section 153A, which defines "relevant assessment year" for the extended ten-year period as years falling beyond six years but "not later than ten assessment years from the end of the assessment year" relevant to the search year
Source reference: para 11, 12The court relied on the precedent of Jayantibhai Karamshibhai Maniya v. ITO [2026] which established that the search year is included in the ten-year block
Source reference: para 12.4and followed the reasoning in Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd. (Delhi HC) and A.R. Safiullah v. ACIT (Madras HC) regarding the distinct computational regimes for the six-year and ten-year periods
Source reference: para 5.4, 12.4Reasoning
The court analyzed the linguistic distinction in Section 153A, noting that while the six-year block uses the phrase "immediately preceding" (which excludes the search year), the ten-year block is reckoned "from the end of the assessment year" of the search
Source reference: para 12.1, 12.2Given the search took place in FY 2023-24 (AY 2024-25), the court determined that AY 2024-25 serves as the first year in the backward-running ten-year count
Source reference: para 8, 12.3Consequently, the tenth year in this block is AY 2015-16
Source reference: para 5.3, 12.4The court rejected the Revenue's argument to exclude the search year from the ten-year calculation, holding that such an interpretation would render the specific statutory phrasing "from the end of the assessment year" redundant and violate principles of literal construction
Source reference: para 12.2, 12.3Holding
The court held that the impugned notice for AY 2014-15 was issued beyond the permissible ten-year limitation period, as the ten-year block terminating from the search year (AY 2024-25) only extends back to AY 2015-16
The court concluded that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice after the expiry of the statutory time limit
Source reference: para 13The High Court quashed and set aside the Section 148 notices dated 26.03.2025 for AY 2014-15 and made the Rule absolute
Source reference: para 13Original Court PDF
Dilipbhai Prabhudas Patel v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, R/Special Civil Application No. 2403 of 2026 with R/SCA No. 2428 of 2026
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in