M/S VIKAS SURYA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1598/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 September 2026AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that for proceedings under Section 153C to be valid, there must be specific incriminating material found that pertains to the assessment year in question. A general satisfaction note without such specific material vitiates the assessment.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard an appeal concerning assessment year 2014-15. The issue arose from proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search in another group of cases.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment initiated under Section 153C was valid without specific incriminating material pertaining to the assessment year in question.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv, Ms. Sakshi Rustagi, Adv
Hearing: 13.08.2026Pronounced: 10.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1598/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Vikas Surya Vs. Dy. CIT, Developers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-28, 245, Budhpur, New Delhi Bijapur, Alipur, Delhi PAN: AADCV3771F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Rustagi, Adv. Department by Sh. Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 13.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 10.09.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1084783967(1), dated 14.01.2026, involving proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.1598/Del/2026

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost legal ground/argument, it transpires at the outset that the learned departmental authorities had carried out search in question on 18.10.2019 in M/s. Alankit group of cases. And that the learned prescribed authority’s section 153C satisfaction in the assessee’s cases for assessment years 2010-11 to AY 2020-21, has been filed in case records at pages 70 to 71 thereof wherein the only relevant incriminating material pertained to FYs 2010-11 and 2013-14 involving varying sums. This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. 3. Faced with this situation, we hereby quote Saksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1 (Delhi)(HC) that such a common satisfaction in absence of any incriminating material found/seized relevant to the assessment year in issue, vitiates the corresponding assessment itself, as under: “63. On an overall consideration of the structure of Sections 153A and 153C, we thus find that a reopening or abatement would be triggered only upon the discovery of material which is likely to "have a bearing on the determination of the total income" and would have to be examined bearing in mind the AYs' which are likely to be impacted. It would thus be incorrect to either interpret or construe Section 153C as envisaging incriminating material pertaining to a particular AY having a cascading effect and which would warrant a mechanical and inevitable assessment or reassessment for the entire block of the "relevant assessment year". 2 | P a g e

ITA No.1598/Del/2026

64.

In our considered view, abatement of the six AYs' or the "relevant assessment year" under Section 153C would follow the formation of opinion and satisfaction being reached that the material received is likely to impact the computation of income for a particular AY or AYs' that may form part of the block of ten AYs'. Abatement would be triggered by the formation of that opinion rather than the other way around. This, in light of the discernibly distinguishable statutory regime underlying Sections 153A and 153C as explained above. While in the case of the former, a notice would inevitably be issued the moment a search is undertaken or documents requisitioned, whereas in the case of the latter, the proceedings would be liable to be commenced only upon the AO having formed the opinion that the material gathered is likely to inculpate the assessee. While in the case of a Section 153A assessment, the issue of whether additions are liable to be made based upon the material recovered is an aspect which would merit consideration in the course of the assessment proceedings, under Section 153C, the AO would have to be prima facie satisfied that the documents, data or asset recovered is likely to "have a bearing on the determination of the total income". It is only once an opinion in that regard is formed that the AO would be legally justified in issuing a notice under that provision and which in turn would culminate in the abatement of pending assessments or reassessments as the case may be. 65. We would thus recognize the flow of events contemplated under Section 153C being firstly the receipt of books, accounts, documents or assets by the jurisdictional AO, an evaluation and examination of their contents and an assessment of the potential impact that they may have on the total income for the six AYs' immediately preceding the AY pertaining to the year of search and the "relevant assessment year". It is only once the AO of the non-searched entity is satisfied that the material coming into its possession is likely to "have a bearing on the determination of the total income" that a notice under Section 153C would be issued. Abatement would thus be a necessary corollary of that notice. However, both the issuance of notice as well as abatement would have to necessarily be preceded by the satisfaction spoken of above being reached by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched entity. 66. Therefore, and in our opinion, abatement of the six AYs' or the "relevant assessment year" would follow the formation of that opinion and satisfaction in that respect being reached. 67. On an overall consideration of the aforesaid, we come to the firm conclusion that the "incriminating material" which is spoken of would have to be identified with respect to the AY to which it relates or may 3 | P a g e

ITA No.1598/Del/2026

be likely to impact before the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act. A material, document or asset recovered in the course of a search or on the basis of a requisition made would justify abatement of only those pending assessments or reopening of such concluded assessments to which alone it relates or is likely to have a bearing on the estimation of income. The mere existence of a power to assess or reassess the six AYs' immediately preceding the AY corresponding to the year of search or the "relevant assessment year" would not justify a sweeping or indiscriminate invocation of Section 153C. 68. The jurisdictional AO would have to firstly be satisfied that the material received is likely to have a bearing on or impact the total income of years or years which may form part of the block of six or ten AYs' and thereafter proceed to place the assessee on notice under Section 153C. The power to undertake such an assessment would stand confined to those years to which the material may relate or is likely to influence. Absent any material that may either cast a doubt on the estimation of total income for a particular year or years, the AO would not be justified in invoking its powers conferred by Section 153C. It would only be consequent to such satisfaction being reached that a notice would be liable to be issued and thus resulting in the abatement of pending proceedings and reopening of concluded assessments. H. OPERATIVE DIRECTIONS 69. When tested in light of the aforesaid principles, we find that except for a few exceptions which were noticed in the introductory parts of this judgment, the writ petitions forming part of this batch, impugn the invocation of Section 153C in respect of AYs' for which no incriminating material had been gathered or obtained. The Satisfaction Notes also fail to record any reasons as to how the material discovered and pertaining to a particular AY is likely to "have a bearing on the determination of the total income" for the year which is sought to be abated or reopened in terms of the impugned notices. The respondents have erroneously proceeded on the assumption that the moment any material is recovered in the course of a search or on the basis of a requisition made, they become empowered in law to assess or reassess all the six AYs' years immediately preceding the assessment correlatable to the search year or the "relevant assessment year" as defined in terms of Explanation 1 of Section 153A. The said approach is clearly unsustainable and contrary to the consistent line struck by the precedents noticed above. 70. There are two writ petitions forming part of this batch which however need to be examined and dealt with separately. W.P.(C) 4 | P a g e

ITA No.1598/Del/2026

3007/2023 assails a notice under Section 153C pertaining to AY 2013-14. The Satisfaction Note dated 20 October 2022 alludes to incriminating material having been recovered for FYs' 2012-13 and 2013-14 and consequently the corresponding AYs' being AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. Ex facie, the impugned notice pertains to an assessment period in respect of which material had been specifically identified. 71. Similarly, in W.P. (C) 3019/2023, the challenge is to a notice relating to AY 2014-15. A reading of the Satisfaction Note placed at Annexure J would indicate that here too there is a clear reference to the material that was obtained and was correlatable to the said AY. 72. Consequently, the aforenoted two writ petitions would not be entitled to succeed on grounds which were urged on behalf of the writ petitioners. Accordingly, and while we would dismiss these two writ petitions, we leave all other contentions of parties open to be addressed in the proceedings presently ongoing. 73. Accordingly, and for all the aforesaid reasons, we allow the present writ petitions and quash the impugned notices insofar as they pertain to AYs' 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018- 19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 as per the details set out in the chart extracted hereinabove. W.P.(C) Nos. 3007/2023 and 3019/2023, however, for reasons aforenoted shall stand dismissed subject to the observations made hereinabove.”

4.

We adopt their lordships’ above decision mutatis mutandis to quash the impugned assessment dated 25.03.2023 in very terms. All other remaining arguments between the parties stand retendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th September, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 10th September, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 5 | P a g e

ITA No.1598/Del/2026

1.

Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

6 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →