ORDER : (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) 1. Present petition has been filed challenging the notices dated 29.09.2020 under Section 153C of the INCOME TAX ACT (in short as ‘the Act’) as also the order dated 01.09.2021 disposing the objections filed by the assessee along with the show cause notices issued for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 dated 01.09.2021. The only ground to challenge the notices under Section 153C of the Act issued to the assessee and the consequential action of the Revenue is that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer has not recorded any satisfaction prior to the issuance of the said notices. 2. The contention is that during the search and seizure operations conducted on 26.09.2018 at the premises of Star Alliance, which was engaged in the business of real estate, certain material was seized by the Assessing Officer of the said assessee which has resulted in issuance of notices dated 29.09.2020 to the assessee under Section 153C by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. It is submitted that by communication dated 29.10.2020, the assessee has asked to supply the satisfaction note on which the assessee’s assessment has been reopened. The contention is that the copy of the satisfaction note received by the assessee on 20.02.2021 was the satisfaction note dated 15.10.2019 of the searched party and not of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the assessee. 3. It is further submitted that after receipt of the copy of statement and other relevant material from the Revenue on 05.03.2021, the assessee filed objections to Section 153C proceedings with their detailed submissions on 25.03.2021. By order dated 01.09.2021, the objections of the assessee were rejected and show cause notices were issued thereafter. Amongst various objections taken in the writ petition about the validity of the proceedings under Section 153C, the only ground pressed into service is that the satisfaction note was recorded by a different person than the person issuing the notice under Section 153C. 4. Amongst various objections taken in the writ petition about the validity of the proceedings under Section 153C, the only ground pressed into service is that the satisfaction note was recorded by a different person than the person issuing the notice under Section 153C. 4. The reliance is placed on the decisions of Commissioner of Income-tax-III vs. Calcutta Knitwears , [2014]43 taxmann.com 446(SC) , Ashok Commercial Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax , [2023] 154 taxmann.com 144 (Bombay) , Canyon Financial Services Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer , [2017] 84 taxmann.com 71(Delhi) , Super Malls (P.) Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 8 New Delhi , [2020] 115 taxmann.com 105 (SC) as also CBDT Circulars dated 31.12.2015 and 14.08.2019, to substantiate the above submissions 5. The contention is that it was mandatory for the Assessing Officer before issuing notice under Section 153C to reach at the satisfaction that the books of accounts or the documents of assets seized or requisitioned of the searched party have bearing on the determination of income of another person. The requirement to supply the satisfaction note cannot be understated. The CBDT Circular dated 31.12.2015 made it mandatory for the Assessing Officer to record his satisfaction before issuing notice for the purpose of assessment of income of other than the searched person under Section 153C, even if he happens to be the Assessing Officer of the searched party. Placing the CBDT Circular dated 14.08.2019, it is submitted that any communication made by the Assessing Officer must quote a Document Identification Number (DIN number) and the satisfaction note sent to the assessee appended at Page No.’39’ of the paper book does not bear DIN number it shows that it was a ‘dumb document’. 6. In response to the stand of the assessee, in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Revenue in compliance of the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by this Court, it is submitted that the impugned notices under Section 153C, the order of rejection of the objections of the assessee and the consequential show cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer are well within his jurisdiction. There is no quarrel about the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer for issuance of such notices and the order. 7. There is no quarrel about the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer for issuance of such notices and the order. 7. About the notice issued under Section 153C, a categorical statement has been made in the affidavit that based on the facts and documents transpired during the search operations of the Star Alliance Builder Group carried out on 26.09.2018, the Assessing Officer of searched person namely the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot,(Shri Gurpreet Singh), had recorded his satisfaction on 15.10.2019 recording that the seized material from the premises of one Shri Himanshu Raiyani belongs to and information contained therein relates to the assessee (the petitioner herein) and forwarded the same to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the assessee (namely, the ACIT) Circle-1(1), Rajkot. The satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched party is appended at Page No.’154’ of the paper book as Annexure-R1 to the said affidavit. 8. It is further stated that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the assessee had recorded his satisfaction and completed the proceedings under Section 153C on 29.09.2020 itself and followed the procedure laid down for issuance of notice under Section 153C of the assessee for AY 2013-14 to AY 2018-19. The categorical statement is that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer had recorded his satisfaction in the ITBA System (Income Tax Business Application) in “record Satisfaction” window, where all details such as date of search, details of satisfaction note of Assessing Officer of searched person have also been recorded. It is stated that a soft copy (word file) of the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee was also attached thereto in the attachment window on the ITBA System. The screen shot of the ITBA System, the application for selection of Assessment Year for assessment under Section 153C of the relevant search year are appended at Page Nos.’156 to 158’ to prove the same. 9. A perusal of page No.’156’ of the paper book shows that the column such as “Record Satisfaction (Stage 1) (Satisfaction remarks for recommending the case under Section 153C to jurisdictional Assessing Officer), is filled up having date as 15.10.2019; the date of receipt of books of accounts/document/assets seized/requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person is also reflected as dated ‘15.10.2019’; in the next column. For the column”Record Satisfaction (Stage 2)(Satisfaction remarks for marking the case for notice generation under Section 153C, it records that “a search and seizure action was conducted in the case of Star Alliance on 26.09.2018 by Investigation wing, Rajkot. This group is engaged in the business of real estate. The key four groups involved in the present searches were: ‘Attachments’ thereto. 10. The further details with regard to the assessee can be found at Page No.’157’ where the select option is ‘search’ under Section 153C. The details of attachments brought at Page No.’158’ in the category of search related documents, records ‘satisfactory note’ with reference to the assessee uploaded by the officer having designation DCIT/ACIT CIR1(1),RKT dated 29.09.2020. The details at Page Nos.’156 to 157’ clearly indicate that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer has recorded his satisfaction and uploaded the same at the ITBA System on 29.09.2020, the date when notice under Section 153C had been issued. 11. It is submitted by Mr. Varun Patel, learned advocate appearing for the Revenue that the notice under Section 153C was generated by the system after uploading of the above noted details. The contention is that all the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the notice under Section 153C was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer without recording his own satisfaction on the material transpired by the Assessing Officer of the searched party, are, therefore, liable to be turned down. 12. We may record that the objections filed by the assessee dated 25.03.2021 to the notice under Section 153C were dealt with by the Assessing Officer by passing an order dated 01.09.2021 and the show cause notices were issued only thereafter. 13. Mr. Varun Patel, learned advocate appearing for the Revenue has invited the attention of the Court to Page Nos.’53 and 54’ of the paper book which are the objections filed by the assessee, wherein it is stated that: “ 6. As Regards Exhibit-5 - The assessee has received the copy of the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings u/s 153C of the Act but the assessee has not been supplied with the copy of satisfaction note as recorded in the case of Aryan Arcade Limited/ any other concerns of Decora Group. As Regards Exhibit-5 - The assessee has received the copy of the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings u/s 153C of the Act but the assessee has not been supplied with the copy of satisfaction note as recorded in the case of Aryan Arcade Limited/ any other concerns of Decora Group. The assessee requests that a copy of such note may please be supplied in order for me to determine as to how and why the materials provided are treated to be pertaining to the assessee. - The assessee would like to draw reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VS. Calcutta Knitwears [214 362 ITR 673 (SC) which is a landmark judgement, in the favour of assessee, covering issues pointed out by the assessee, supra. - Further, reference is invited to the CBDT Circular dated 31/12/2015 vide Circular No.24 of 2015, wherein referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Calcutta Knitwears, (supra) in para 3 has accepted that the provisions of section 153C are in pari materia to the provisions of section 153BD of the Act . The Circular in para-4 further issued guidelines to the AO to strictly follow the decision in the case of CIT vs. M/s Calcutta Knitwears (supra) for recording satisfaction and has stated that even if the AO of the searched person and the ‘other person’ is one and the same, then also he is required to record his satisfaction as has been upheld by the Courts before handing over books of accounts and other materials belonging to the person other than searched person. T he CBDT further clarified that any pending litigation with regard to recording of satisfaction note u/s 158BD in ITA No.1547/Mum/2015 Vivil Investment Pvt. Ltd. 10/153C should be withdrawn/not pressed, if it does not meet the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court. - The Satisfaction Note provided to the assessee mentions various facts and details related to Decora Group. There is a strong mention regarding acceptance of Mr. Himanshu Raiyani as regards MIRACLE software belonging and pertaining to DECORA and allied groups only. Here it is worthwhile to note that from the extract of Statement of Mr.Himanshu Raiyani, submitted to the assessee, it can be observed that there is nowhere mention of such an acceptance by Mr. Himanshu Raiyani. There is a strong mention regarding acceptance of Mr. Himanshu Raiyani as regards MIRACLE software belonging and pertaining to DECORA and allied groups only. Here it is worthwhile to note that from the extract of Statement of Mr.Himanshu Raiyani, submitted to the assessee, it can be observed that there is nowhere mention of such an acceptance by Mr. Himanshu Raiyani. There is only an acceptance that the two backups have been maintained by Mr. Himanshu Raiyani as per instructions from the owner of Decora Group- Mr. Nikhilbhai and Mr. Jamanbhai Patel, wherein certain unaccounted transactions are recorded. - The Satisfaction Note provided to me mentions that it is noticed by your good selves that the assessee has given certain unaccounted cash to Square 9 projects of Decora Group. The assessee has not been provided with any incriminating material verifying this fact.” 14. We may record that in the objections filed on 25.03.2021, there is no categorical assertion that the satisfaction note supplied to the assessee was the copy of the satisfaction note of the searched party and not that of the assessee. There is a serious doubt about the contentions of the assessee. 15. We may further record that as regards the contention of the assessee that the satisfaction note of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer was not supplied to him, it is submitted in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Revenue that before issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act, the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer of the searched person was recorded on 15.10.2019 and the same was provided to the assessee on 20.02.2021. However, with regard to the satisfaction note of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the assessee, it is reiterated that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction note on 29.09.2020 before issuing notice under Section 153C which was incorporated in the order disposing of the objection dated 01.09.2021. Both the satisfaction notes are annexed to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Revenue. The contention is that the satisfaction note introduced in the order disposing the objection dated 01.09.2021 is the satisfaction note of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the assessee. However, by inadvertent mistake, it was mentioned as ‘satisfaction note of the searched party’, instead of the satisfaction note of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, in the order disposing of the objection dated 01.09.2021. However, by inadvertent mistake, it was mentioned as ‘satisfaction note of the searched party’, instead of the satisfaction note of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, in the order disposing of the objection dated 01.09.2021. It is reiterated that the assessee has never raised any objection with regard to non-receipt of satisfaction note prior to filing of the present petition. 16. In rejoinder, in reply to various paragraphs of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Revenue, it is submitted that the satisfaction notes appended at Annexure-R1 and R2 in the affidavit-in-reply of the Revenue are not maintainable being contrary to the CBDT Circular dated 14.08.2019, inasmuch as, in absence of mandatory DIN Number, both the satisfaction notes are invalid and deemed to have never been issued in the eyes of law. The said documents are unbelievable being ‘dumb document’ to which no value can be attached. They are filed for the sole purpose of misleading this Court. 17. Taking note of the above submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, suffice it to record that there is no dispute about the manner in which the ITBA System application for assessment under Section 153C works. The details from Page Nos.’156 to 158’ noted hereinbefore clearly demonstrate that the Assessing Officer of the assessee, namely the DCIT/ACIT CIR1(1),RKT had uploaded satisfaction note on 29.09.2020 as part of the attachments to the column to ‘record satisfaction’ for making the case for notice generation under Section 153C. 18. We find no reason to discard this material brought on record which could not be disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee. The only submission is that as DIN number is not mentioned in the satisfaction note, they have to be treated as dumb document and cannot be relied upon. To this submission, suffice it to record that the DIN number as per the CBDT Circular dated 14.08.2019 placed before us is to be mentioned in the communications electronically or manually which are issued by the Income-tax authority relating to assessment appeals, orders etc., to the assessee or any other person. The CBDT Circular dated 14.08.2019 categorically states that on or after 01.10.2019, unless a computer generated Document Identification Number has been allotted and is duly quoted in the body of such communication, no communication shall be made by any Income-tax authority relating to assessment etc. 19. The CBDT Circular dated 14.08.2019 categorically states that on or after 01.10.2019, unless a computer generated Document Identification Number has been allotted and is duly quoted in the body of such communication, no communication shall be made by any Income-tax authority relating to assessment etc. 19. We may further note that the satisfaction note is a document which is to be prepared by the Assessing Officer to be kept on record along with the notice issued under Section 153C and the requirement is that the Assessing Officer must have recorded his satisfaction before issuing notice to another assessee within his jurisdiction, based on the search material to note that the books of accounts or the document of assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of income of other person. The copy of the satisfaction note uploaded on 29.09.2020 by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the assessee at the ITBA System is appended at Page No.’159 to 165’ of the paper book. 20. We may record that the said document is downloaded from the system and attached herewith. There is no dispute about the fact that the said satisfaction note pertains to the assessee herein and it is recorded therein that the seized material mentioned therein was seized from the residential premises of Himanshu Raiyani covered under Section 153A of the Act and information belongs/pertains to the assessee, i.e. the assessee (petitioner herein) being other than the person under Section 153A of the Act. It is further stated therein that the Assessing Officer has satisfaction that : “9. Therefore, I have satisfaction to proceed against the assessee Shri Manish Dayashankar Madeka PAN:AASPM8191Q as per the provision of section 153C of the Income-tax Act 1961. Hence, it is a fit case for initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. The provisions of section 153C(1) has to be invoked for AY 2013-14 to AY 2018-19 and for u/s. 143(3) for AY 2019-20.” 21. Having noted the above facts, brought on record of the writ petition, we are not convinced with the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee to challenge the notices issued under Section 153C of the Act dated 29.09.2020. Challenge to the order of rejection of objections of the assessee dated 01.09.2021 and the impugned notices dated 29.09.2020 and the show cause notices dated 01.09.2021, consequently, cannot be sustained. Challenge to the order of rejection of objections of the assessee dated 01.09.2021 and the impugned notices dated 29.09.2020 and the show cause notices dated 01.09.2021, consequently, cannot be sustained. The writ petition is found devoid of merits and, hence, dismissed. 22. It is, however, clarified that the dismissal of the present petition will not come in the way of the assessee in the proceedings being conducted as per the statutory remedies availed by him.