DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. AJAY GOENKA, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6138/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 September 2026AY 2014-156 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2014-15 was beyond the six assessment years prescribed under Section 153C read with Section 153A. The satisfaction note did not indicate that the escaped income met the Rs. 50 Lakh threshold for the relevant assessment years.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order that annulled an assessment order passed under Section 153C. The assessee contended that the Section 153C proceedings were without jurisdiction, citing a Delhi High Court ruling on the relevant date for determining the six-year period.

What were the issues?

Whether the proceedings under Section 153C were initiated within the prescribed time limits and if the escaped income met the threshold for assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI

Before: MS MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRAShri Shivam Yadav, Adv Shri K. Hauthang, CIT-DR

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv
For Respondent: Shri K. Hauthang, CIT-DR
Hearing: 07/09/2026Pronounced: 07/09/2026

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6138/Del/2026 (A.Y 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Ajay Goenka Income Tax, Office of the 1319, DCIT, Central Circle-28, VaidwaraMailwara Nai Room No. 327, E-2, ARA, Sarak, Delhi-110006 Jhandewalan, New Delhi- 110055, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAOPG0965E Assessee by : Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv Revenue by: Shri K. Hauthang, CIT-DR

Date of Hearing 07/09/2026 Date of pronouncement 07/09/2026

O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM.: The instant appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order

dated 20.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals),

Delhi-25 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated

24.03.2024 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department under

Section 153C of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

It is the case of the Assessee that the order initiating proceeding

under Section 153C is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the entire

proceeding is to be quashed. This is particularly in view of the order

2 ITA No. 6138/Del/2026 DCIT Vs. Ajay Goenka passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT, Central-1,

-Vs- Ojjus Medicare Private Limited, reported in 2024 465 ITR 101

(Delhi) dated 03.04.2024, wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

clarified the date of search in the case of the person other than

searched person as per a deeming legal fiction under the first proviso

to Section 153C of the Act, being date of handing over of seized

documents to AO of non -searched person.

3.

In this regard, the Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the

observation made by the Ld. CIT(A) while holding the order of

assessment beyond the ambit of 10 Assessment Years as provided

under Section 153C r.w. Section 153A of the Act.

4.

The Ld. DR on the other hand could not controvert such

submission made by the Ld. AR.

5.

Heard the parties, perused the records. While allowing the

appeal preferred by the Assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) made the following

observation on the issue impugned before us:

“15. As per the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi, the period of six assessment years means six years prior to the assessment year in which the seized material was handed over to the AO of the 'other' (non-searched) person / satisfaction note u/s 153C was recorded. As seen from record, the Satisfaction note in the instant case was recorded by the AO of the searched person on 19.07.2022 and forwarded on the same date along with related annexures/documents to the jurisdictional AO of the appellant, and the notice u/s 153C of the Act dated 12.05.2023 was issued by the AO. Thus, the relevant date of handingover lies in the F.Y. 2022-23 relevant to AY 2023-24. Therefore,

3 ITA No. 6138/Del/2026 DCIT Vs. Ajay Goenka

by this yardstick, six years period as referred to in section 153C(1) of the Act would be from AYs 2017-18 to 2022-23 (and 2023-24).

16.

To ascertain whether the income escaping assessment in the relevant assessment year or the aggregate of the assessment years amounted to or was likely to amount to Rs. 50 Lakhs or more, the relevant portion of the satisfaction note drawn as seen from record and submitted by the appellant was perused, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below:

3.

Based on the detailed analysis of Ledgers related to Sh. Ajay Goenka, it came to light that the unaccounted cash transactions have been made to the extent as summarily quantified below for each ledger:

5.

From the below mentioned transactions in the ledger of Sh. Ajay Goenka it appears that yments have been made to following entities on behalf of Sh. Ajay Goenka to these entities:

4 ITA No. 6138/Del/2026 DCIT Vs. Ajay Goenka

17.

From the above, it is seen that the aggregate of the income having escaped assessment for the 'relevant assessment years', i.e. impugned AY 2014-15 (FY 2013-14), AY 2015-16 (FY 2014-15) and AY 2016-17 (FY 2015-16) as per the satisfaction note recorded falls short of Rs. 50 lakhs.

18.

Following the ratio of decision as per the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare (supra), the satisfaction note does not show that the income alleged to have escaped assessment amounted to or was likely to amount to Rs. 50 Lakhs or more in the 'relevant assessment year' or in aggregate in the 'relevant assessment years' in the case of the appellant under consideration. It is thus seen that A.Y. 2014-15 is not covered within six AYs as per section 153C of the Act and the condition/s for assessing it as part of the relevant assessment year/s was not existent. Accordingly, based on the aforesaid facts in the instant case of the appellant, respectfully following the binding judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court as per judicial discipline in the case of Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd.

5 ITA No. 6138/Del/2026 DCIT Vs. Ajay Goenka

(supra), it is held that the notice u/s 153C dated 12.05.2023 for the AY 2014-15 would fall beyond the ambit of six AYs' as provided under section 153C read with section 153A, and hence the impugned assessment order dated 24.03.2024 passed u/s 153C of the Act for the instant AY 2014-15 in pursuance of such notice would not survive, having no legs to stand, and is thus annulled.

19.

As it is held that the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to assess the appellant's case for the A.Y 2014-15, therefore, all the other grounds raised by the appellant, both legal and on merits, are rendered academic in nature, and hence not required to be adjudicated upon. There is hence no adjudication on other grounds or merits in this case.”

6.

In view of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) considering the

judgment passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the

matter of PCIT –Vs- Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra) holding the

reassessment for A.Y 2014-15 is beyond jurisdiction is found to be

just and proper so as not to warrant interference.

7.

The Appeal preferred by the Revenue is, thus, found to be

devoid of any merit and dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07/09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07/09/2026 R. Naheed, Sr PS

6 ITA No. 6138/Del/2026 DCIT Vs. Ajay Goenka

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →