Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning assessment year 2011-12. The case involved proceedings under section 153C initiated after a search on 02.11.2017, with the notice issued on 01.02.2022 and assessment framed on 29.12.2022.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessment year 2011-12 was beyond the 10-year period from the date of satisfaction for section 153C. They also noted that the section 153D approval obtained was not sustainable in law.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment framed under section 153C was valid when the assessment year fell outside the prescribed time limit from the date of satisfaction/search. Whether the section 153D approval was obtained in accordance with law.
Sections Cited
153C, 144, 153D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
With C.O. No.80/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Geeta Arora, DCIT, Central Circle-15, M-75, Greater Kailash, Delhi Part-1, New Delhi PAN: AEKPA4628J (Appellant) (Respondent/cross-objector) Assessee by Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Ms. Uma Upadhayay, CA Sh. Aditya Garg, AR Department by Sh. Rajesh Chardra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 13.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 13.08.2025 ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This Revenue’s appeal with assessee’s cross objection C.O. No. 80/Del/2025 for assessment year 2011- 12, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s order dated 13.11.2024 passed in case no. 26/10127/2010-11, involving proceedings under section 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
We first of all note that there arises the former legal issue of validity of the impugned assessment itself herein as the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in question on 02.11.2017 followed by initiation of section 153C notice issued to the assessee on 01.02.2022 culminating in the impugned assessment framed in her case on 29.12.2022.
This being the clinching factual position, learned CIT(DR) could hardly dispute that the assessment year involved herein is 2011-12 i.e. beyond the maximum time period of 10 assessment years from the date of section 153C satisfaction i.e. 01.02.2022 relevant to assessment year 2022-23. Various recent judicial precedents CIT-7 Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del), PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd., (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh (2024) 465 ITR 101 (SC) have already settled the issue against the department that the date of satisfaction u/s 153C(1) first proviso which has to be construed as the date of search for the purpose of computing the corresponding assessment
2 | P a g e years in question as the case herein. We thus hold the impugned assessment dated 29.12.2022 as not sustainable in law in very terms.
We further note that the learned Assessing Officer had obtained section 153D common approval in assessee’s case on 29.12.2022 which is not sustainable in law in light of PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) 467 ITR 186 (Del.) that such a failure vitiates the entire assessment itself. All other pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.
This Revenue’s appeal