Disposed¶19

Rakesh Kumar GOYAL-2014-2015 v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Central CIRCLE-3(1)-MUMBAI

Bombay HC29 Jul 2025WP/2801/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 153C Income Tax Act 1961; Section 144 IT Act; satisfaction note non-supply; search assessment A.Y. 2014-2015; notice dated 29.09.2022; assessment order dated 28.03.2024; sine qua non; interim stay of assessment order; writ petition pending admission; Bombay High Court OOCJ WP 2801 of 2024; Rakesh Kumar Goyal v. ACIT Central Circle-3(1) Mumbai; Revenue stance that satisfaction note is internal document; admission listed 20.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay of the effect, implementation and operation of the Assessment Order for A.Y. 2014-2015 pending admission of the writ petition, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties; the petition is listed for admission on 20th January, 2026. ¶19

Rakesh Kumar GOYAL-2014-2015 vs Assistant Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the non-supply to the petitioner of the satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer of the person searched and the satisfaction note prepared by the petitioner's own Assessing Officer, allegedly a sine qua non before passing an Assessment Order under Section 153C of the IT Act, renders the entire Section 153C proceedings for A.Y. 2014-2015 bad in law and liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶17

Ratio / Principle

As an interim measure, pending admission of the writ petition and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the effect, implementation and operation of the Assessment Order for A.Y. 2014-2015 shall remain stayed. The court expressed only a prima facie view at this stage and did not decide the merits of the challenge.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 2801 of 2024, Rakesh Kumar Goyal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai & ors. — Interlocutory order dated December 16, 2025. The petitioner challenges a notice dated 29.09.2022 under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequent assessment order dated 28.03.2024 under Sections 153C read with 144 for A.Y. 2014-2015, principally on the ground that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the satisfaction note of the petitioner's own Assessing Officer were not supplied to him, which he contends is a sine qua non for a Section 153C assessment; the Revenue contends there is no provision entitling the petitioner to the satisfaction note, which are internal documents. Hearing rival submissions, the Division Bench (B. P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar, JJ.) granted an interim stay, without prejudice, of the effect, implementation and operation of the assessment order pending admission, and listed the petition for admission on 20.01.2026. No merits were decided and no precedent was cited in this order.

¶1

71.os.wp.2801.2024.doc

¶2

VINA ARVIND KHADPE

¶3

Digitally signed by VINA ARVIND KHADPE Date: 2025.12.23 12:16:15 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2801 OF 2024

¶6

Rakesh Kumar Goyal .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai & ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr.Madhur Agrawal, with Mr.Punit J. Shah, i/b. Mr. Atul Jasani, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Prakash Chhotaray, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.

¶11

DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2025

¶12

P. C.

¶13

The above Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned Notice dated 29^th September, 2022, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) and the consequent Assessment Order dated 28^th March, 2024, passed under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the IT Act. The Assessment Year in question is A.Y. 2014-2015. One of the main grounds on which the said notice is challenged, is that the satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer of the person searched as well as the satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer of the Petitioner have not been supplied to

¶14

Vina Khadpe,PS

¶15

Page 1 of 3 DECEMBER 16, 2025

¶16

71.os.wp.2801.2024.doc

¶17

the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, this is sine qua non for before passing any Assessment Order under Section 153C of the IT Act. This having not been done, the entire proceedings under Section 153C of the IT Act are bad in law and therefore have to be quashed.

¶18

In contrast, it is the case of the Revenue that there is no provision under the IT Act under which the Petitioner can ask for the satisfaction note. According to the Revenue, these are internal documents and the Petitioner is not entitled to the same. This is apart from the fact that all the relevant material for issuing the Notice under Section 153C of the IT Act were admittedly provided to the Petitioner.

¶19

We have heard the rival submissions. At this stage, prima facie, we are of the view that pending the admission of the Writ Petition, without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties, the effect, implementation and operation of the Assessment Order passed in relation to A.Y. 2014-2015 shall remain stayed.

¶20

We now place the above Writ Petition for admission on 20^th January, 2026.

Page 2 of 3

DECEMBER 16, 2025

Vina Khadpe,PS

71.os.wp.2801.2024.doc

¶25

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶26

[ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR , J.]

¶27

[B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

DECEMBER 16, 2025

¶30

Vina Khadpe,PS

Rakesh Kumar GOYAL-2014-2015 v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Central CIRCLE-3(1)-MUMBAI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar GOYAL-2014-2015 v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Central CIRCLE-3(1)-MUMBAI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yerneni Naveen vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

Sukumar Bandreddi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3) Mumba

Damani Research Foundation of Medical Sciences vs Commissioner of Income tax (Exemption)

Veena Dilip Mulani vs Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 42

Archana Govind Rathod vs Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 41 (Earlier PCIT-17)

Siddhesh Charitable Trust vs Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption Pune