01Facts
The petitioner, an infrastructure development company under the MSK/Madhav Group, filed its income tax return for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 on 30.10.2015
¶ 4, 4.1On 18.05.2024, a search was conducted at the petitioner’s premises under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
¶ 4.1Subsequently, on 30.03.2026, the respondent issued a notice under Section 148 seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2015-16, asserting that seized documents related to the petitioner disclosed escaped income
¶ 4.1The petitioner challenged this notice primarily on the grounds that it was barred by limitation under the statutory scheme
¶ 4.1, 502Issues
i.1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2015-16 is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Income Tax Act
¶ 9(i)ii.2. Whether the "search assessment year" (AY 2025-26) should be included or excluded when calculating the ten-year block period for the "relevant assessment year" under Explanation 1 to Section 153A
¶ 1003Law Applied
The Court applied Section 153A(1)(b) and Explanation 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, noting that for the 10-year extended limitation, the period is reckoned "from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted"
¶ 12, 12.1The Court further relied on the precedent of Jayantibhai Karamshibhai Maniya v. Income-tax Officer [2026] 182 taxmann.com 493 (Guj.), which established that the search year itself is the first year in the ten-year count
¶ 13.4Provisions in the judgment · 10
Income Tax Act, 1961 10 provisions
Section 132Section 132ASection 147Section 148Section 149Section 150Section 151Section 152Section 153ASection 153C04Reasoning
The Court analyzed the linguistic distinction between the six-year and ten-year limitation periods in Section 153A. For the six-year block, the law uses "immediately preceding," which excludes the search year
¶ 13, 13.1However, Explanation 1 for the ten-year block uses "from the end of the assessment year," which the Court interpreted as requiring the inclusion of the search year in the count
¶ 13.1, 13.3Since the search occurred in FY 2024-25 (AY 2025-26), the Court held that AY 2025-26 is the first year of the ten-year block. Counting backward ten years from AY 2025-26, the limitation period terminates at AY 2016-17
¶ 9, 5.3, 13.405Holding
The Court held that the impugned notice for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation as it falls beyond the ten-year period prescribed by the statute
¶ 14The notice dated 30.03.2026 was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed
¶ 14Original Court PDF
MADHAV POWER PRIVATE LIMITEDvsASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENT CIR 2(3) AHMEDABAD
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
