ORDER : Vivek Rusia, J. Since the controversies involved in these writ petitions are identical in nature, with the joint request of the parties, they are analogously heard and decided by this common order. Facts of the Writ Petition No.37114 of 2024 are narrated hereunder: - 01. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice dated 15.12.2023 issued by the office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – Indore under Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961, whereby the petitioner has been called upon to prepare true and correct return of income tax for the Assessment Year 2014 – 15 in the prescribed format as per Rule 12 of the INCOME TAX RULES , 1962. 02. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Income Tax Department conducted a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the INCOME TAX ACT ,1961 on the premises of Praveen Kakkar & R.K. Miglani Group on 07.04.2019. In the aforesaid search and seizure, some incriminating materials relating to the present petitioner were found. The Assessing Officer, related to Praveen Kakkar & R.K. Miglani Group sent the said material to the concerned Assessing Officers related to the present petitioner. The Assessing Officer issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT dated 15.12.2023. 03. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid notice, demanding the incriminating materials for the relevant period found during the course of the search of the concerned third party's premises. Respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 22.10.2024 under Section 142(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT along with the details of certain alleged documents found during the course of search of aforesaid premises. The petitioner was not satisfied with the documents; therefore, he again sent a letter dated 06.11.2024 to respondent No.1 seeking details / information and the documents including a satisfaction note. Respondent No.1 supplied the aforesaid material and satisfaction notice. 04. According to the petitioner, the alleged documents and undated & unsigned satisfaction note written by the AO were supplied to him, according to him the notice under Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT for the Assessment Year – 2014 – 15 could not have been issued. Respondent No.1 supplied the aforesaid material and satisfaction notice. 04. According to the petitioner, the alleged documents and undated & unsigned satisfaction note written by the AO were supplied to him, according to him the notice under Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT for the Assessment Year – 2014 – 15 could not have been issued. Hence, instead of appearing before the authority for assessment / reassessment in respect of the relevant year, the petitioner chose to file this petition seeking quashment of said notice inter alia on the ground that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT depends of the circumstances; firstly that the incriminating material pertaining to the person for the relevant years found during the search of the concerned third party's premises; secondly the satisfaction notes in respect of the same have been prepared by the Assessing Officer of the concerned third party's premises during the course of assessment and the same was forwarded to the Assessing Officer of the person; and thirdly that upon receipt of such information / material with satisfaction notes, the Assessing Officer of a person other than search i.e. present petitioner arrived to the satisfaction that incriminating materials relate to the petitioner. The petitioner is also challenging the authority of respondent No.1 to issue a notice on the ground of limitation as provided under the proviso to Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT . 05. In support of the above ground, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax 14 v/s Jasjit Singh [S.L.P. (C) No.6644 of 2016] decided on 26.09.2023 , in which the Apex Court has held that first proviso to sub-section (1) of the Section 153C of the Act read with the provisions of Section 153A of the Act six assessment years were to be reckoned not from the date of initiation of search but from the date of receiving the books of account or document or assets by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the case of the person other than the person search (i.e. petitioner in the present case). Therefore, the present notice is patently time-barred and beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No.1. 6.1. Therefore, the present notice is patently time-barred and beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No.1. 6.1. Shri Dubey learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since respondent No.1 lacks jurisdiction to conduct the assessment / reassessment under Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT , therefore, the writ petition is maintainable, and the petitioner cannot be relegated to face the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Shri Dubey, learned counsel further placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax – III v/s Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana reported in (2014) 6 SCC 444 . Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax – 7 v/s RRJ Securities Limited reported in (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Delhi) = MANU/DE/3306/2015. 07. Per contra, Shri Harsh Parashar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the assessment under Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT in respect of other persons must be completed in a timely manner as prescribed under Section 153B of the INCOME TAX ACT i.e. 12 months. In the present case, the assessment will be completed by 31.03.2025. The petitioner filed the writ petition just four months before 31.03.2025. Shri Harsh Parashar, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sharma v/s Income Tax Officer reported in (2023) 155 taxmann.com 232 (Allahabad) , wherein the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay of one year in challenging the notice issued under Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT . The said order was challenged before the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sharma v/s Income Tax Officer reported in (2023) 155 taxmann.com 233 (SC) whereby the SLP has been dismissed. Learned counsel prays that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 08. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 09. The petitioner was served with the impugned notice issued under Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT on 15.12.2023 but the petitioner did not approach this Court immediately by filing the present petition. The petitioner submitted a reply on 10.01.2024 demanding certain documents i.e. incriminating material collected against him. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded the satisfaction note vide letter dated 06.11.2024. The petitioner was served with the impugned notice issued under Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT on 15.12.2023 but the petitioner did not approach this Court immediately by filing the present petition. The petitioner submitted a reply on 10.01.2024 demanding certain documents i.e. incriminating material collected against him. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded the satisfaction note vide letter dated 06.11.2024. The petitioner was served with the notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax along with a satisfaction note initiating the proceedings under Section 153C r/w 153A of the INCOME TAX ACT in the case of the present petitioner. The only objection of the petitioner is that the satisfaction note is undated and unsigned. The petitioner can raise this objection before the Assessing Officer. The issue of limitation is also a mixed question of facts and law. As pointed out by Shri Harsh Parashar, learned counsel for the respondents, the proceedings are bound to be completed within 12 months which is going to be ended on 31.03.2025. The petitioner approached this Court at the very fag end of the period in the month of November – December 2025, therefore, at this belated stage, the petition cannot be entertained. 10. So far as the objections in respect of the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the concerned third party as well as the assessment note in respect of the petitioner are concerned, all these objections can be raised before the Assessing Officer who is competent to appreciate the same after examining the documents. After the order is passed by the Assessing Officer, either party, i.e. petitioner or Department will have the remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax and further remedy before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 11. Even in the case of Jasjit Singh (supra), the matter was travelled up to the Apex Court after exhausting the remedy before the ITAT, therefore, all these objections and grounds raised by the petitioner are liable to be considered by the authorities under the INCOME TAX ACT , not by this Court. Hence, no case for interference is made out. 12. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case. Hence, no case for interference is made out. 12. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case. The order passed by this Court in the present case shall govern W.P. Nos.37803 of 2024, 37250 of 2024, 37249 of 2024 & 37251 of 2024 also, hence, these writ petitions also stand dismissed. Let a copy of this order be kept in the writ petitions also.