CINDRELLA POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1171 & 1172/Del/2026 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/s. Cindrella Polymers Pvt. Vs. DCIT, Ltd., Central Circle-28, BT-37, First Floor, Delhi Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi- 110 088 PAN: AACCC3325M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv. Sh. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department by Sh. K. Hauthang, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 20.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 10.09.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 1171 & 1172/Del/2026 for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s orders, both dated 13.11.2025, having DINs and orders no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1082567034(1) and

ITA Nos.1171 & 1172/Del/2026

1082566745(1), involving proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant has raised its first and foremost legal ground/argument challenging both the impugned section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) assessments framed by the learned Assessing Officer and upheld in the lower appellate discussion(s). We advert to the basic relevant facts. 3. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the learned departmental authorities had carried out search in issue in M/s. Alankit Group on 18.10.2019 wherein it is alleged to have come across the corresponding incriminating material against the assessee as well. There is further no issue between the parties that the assessee’s jurisdictional Assessing Officer; other than the searched party’s Assessing Officer, recorded his section 153C common satisfaction in its case relating to assessment years 2015- 16 and 2016-17 before us. Learned counsel has duly placed the same on record. A perusal thereof indicates that the learned Assessing Officer nowhere made it clear in the impugned

2 | P a g e

ITA Nos.1171 & 1172/Del/2026

satisfaction note that the alleged incriminating material sought to be proceeded against the assessee had a “bearing” on determination of its total income in all these assessment years. 4. Learned CIT(DR) at this stage vehemently supports the impugned satisfaction. His case is that it is nowhere mandatory for the Assessing Officer to specifically incorporate the word “bearing” on the determination of the assessee’s taxable income in such a satisfaction note u/s 153C of the Act. 5. We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing vehement objections as the instant issue stands squarely settled in the assessee’s favour and against the department going by Saksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1 (Delhi)(HC) wherein their lordships have made it clear that the relevant satisfaction note must make it clear that the seized material sought to be used against the assessee indeed has a “bearing” of determination of its total taxable income. We thus accept the assessee’s instant first and foremost legal ground/argument to quash these twin section 153C assessments in very terms. All other pleadings on merits between the parties stand rendered academic.

3 | P a g e

ITA Nos.1171 & 1172/Del/2026

4 | P a g e