Allowed¶26

Swd Industries v. Union of India

Bombay HC6 Jan 2026WP/278/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SWD Industries v. Union of India; Bombay High Court Writ Petition 278 of 2026; Section 153C Income Tax Act 1961 notice time-barred; ten-year limitation; AY 2013-14; satisfaction note 27.10.2022 AY 2023-24; Explanation 1 to Section 153A(1); Ashok Khandelwal W.P. No.5412 of 2024 decided 4.11.2025 followed; same searched person; notice quashed certiorari Article 226; Rule made absolute; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside of the impugned notice dated 27.10.2022 issued by Respondent No.2 under Section 153C of the I.T. Act for AY 2013-14, in terms of prayer clause (a); Rule made absolute and the Writ Petition disposed of accordingly; no order as to costs. ¶26

Swd Industries vs Union of India — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 27.10.2022 issued by Respondent No.2 under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14 is time-barred, being beyond the maximum period of ten years stipulated under Section 153C read with Explanation 1 to Section 153A(1) of the I.T. Act.

¶13

Court's answer

The issue in the present Petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Ashok Khandelwal (Supra); the searched person is the same in both cases, the only difference being the Assessment Year (2010-11 there, 2013-14 here).

¶19

Ratio / Principle

As this Court had already set aside the Section 153C notice in Ashok Khandelwal (Supra) because it was beyond the period of ten years from the relevant Assessment Year, following the same reasoning the Court allows the present Writ Petition in terms of prayer clause (a), i.e., the impugned notice dated 27.10.2022 for AY 2013-14 is quashed and set aside.

¶23

Key takeaways

The impugned notice under Section 153C dated 27.10.2022 for AY 2013-14 falls beyond the maximum period of ten years stipulated under Section 153C read with Explanation 1 to Section 153A(1) of the I.T. Act and is therefore time-barred.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Income Tax — Section 153C I.T. Act — notice dated 27.10.2022 issued by Respondent No.2 for AY 2013-14 — time-bar. Satisfaction note recorded on 27.10.2022 corresponds to AY 2023-24; ten years backwards reaches only AY 2014-15, so AY 2013-14 lies beyond the maximum ten-year period stipulated under Section 153C read with Explanation 1 to Section 153A(1). Bombay High Court (Colabawalla & Pooniwalla, JJ.) found the issue squarely covered by its earlier decision in Ashok Khandelwal v. Union of India (W.P. No. 5412 of 2024, decided 4.11.2025) involving the same searched person (AY 2010-11 there), and, following the same reasoning, allowed the Writ Petition in terms of prayer clause (a) — quashing and setting aside the impugned notice under Article 226 certiorari — made Rule absolute, disposed of the Petition, with no order as to costs.

¶1

49 wp278-26.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TRUSHA TUSHAR TUSHAR MOHITE MOHITE Date: 2026.01.31 15:16:05 +0530

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.278 OF 2026

¶5

SWD Industries .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr.Mahaveer Jain a/w Mr.Bhavesh Bhatia i/b Ms.Neha Anchlia, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JANUARY 27, 2026

¶11

P. C.

¶12

Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

¶13

The above Writ Petition is seeking to quash the impugned notice dated 27^th October 2022 issued by Respondent No.2 under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short “ I.T. Act. ”]. This notice is in relation to Assessment Year 2013-14. The short point on which the aforesaid notice is assailed is that the same is time barred by virtue of the provisions of Section 153C of the I.T. Act.

¶14

Page 1 of 3 JANUARY 27, 2026

¶15

Mohite

¶16

49 wp278-26.doc

¶17

It is the case of the Petitioner that in the present matter, the satisfaction note was recorded by the Assessing Officer of the Petitioner on 27^th October 2022 (i.e. Assessment Year 2023-24). If one was to count ten years backwards from Assessment Year 2023-24, it would come to Assessment Year 2014-15. In the present case, the Assessment Year in question is Assessment Year 2013-14 and it would be beyond the maximum period of ten years as stipulated under Section 153C read with Explanation 1 to Section 153A(1) of the I.T.Act. It is on this short ground of limitation that the Notice issued under section 153C is assailed before us.

¶18

In support of the aforesaid proposition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ashok Khandelwal vs. Union of India and Others [Writ Petition No.5412 of 2024 decided on 4^th November 2025].

¶19

After perusing the record and hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as Mr. Sharma appearing on behalf of the Revenue, we find that the issue in the present Petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Ashok Khandelwal (Supra). The searched person in the case of Ashok Khandelwal (Supra) is the same as the searched person in the present case. The only difference is that in Ashok

¶20

Page 2 of 3 JANUARY 27, 2026

¶21

Mohite

¶22

49 wp278-26.doc

¶23

Khandelwal (Supra), the Assessment Year under consideration was 2010-11, whereas, in the present case, it is Assessment Year 2013-14. Since in Ashok Khandelwal (Supra) , we have already set aside the notice issued under Section 153C because it was beyond the period of ten years from the relevant Assessment Year, following the same reasoning, we allow the present Writ Petition in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus:

¶24

“(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for records pertaining to the impugned notice issued by the Respondent No.2 u/s 153C of the Act dated 27.10.2022 for the AY 2013-14 (being Exhibit 'B' hereto) and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the same.”

¶25

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

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.

¶27

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.]

¶28

[B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶29

Page 3 of 3 JANUARY 27, 2026

¶30

Mohite

Swd Industries v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swd Industries v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rama Industries Limited vs Principal Commissioner of Income tax Mumbai 3, Mumbai

Rohini Randhir Behl vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai 17

Rajesh Parmanand Shah vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 17

High Court Employees Co. operative Credit Society Limited vs Income Tax Officer Ward 17(3)(1), Mumbai

Shardadevi S Jhunjhunwala vs Income Tax Officer Ward 22(3)(1), Mumbai

Samir N Bhojwani 2019 20 vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai 4, Mumbai