DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 28 NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HITESH KHANNA, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1479/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 August 2026AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding it well-reasoned and justified. The Tribunal agreed that the assessment year 2014-15 was outside the permissible block period for assessment under Section 153C.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which allowed the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) held that the assessment year 2014-15 was beyond the six-year block period for assessment under Section 153C, calculated from the date of the satisfaction note.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct calculation of the block period for assessment under Section 153C, specifically whether it should be calculated from the date of the satisfaction note or the date of the search.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, G: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Mann. Adv. &, Shri Atil Jindal, Adv
Hearing: 06.08.2026

Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 16.10.2025 of the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, New Delhi- 110055,[hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the Assessment Order dated 15.02.2024 passed under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’) by theAssessing Officer, DCIT, Central 1

ITA No.- 1479/Del/2026 Hitesh Khanna Circle-28,(hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. Grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue are reproduced as under: “1. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT, Central-1. Delhi vs Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 52 of 2024), even when the Revenue has filed a SLP against this decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that 10 years block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Income- tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the relevant AY in which date of satisfaction note drawn or from the date of issue of Notice u/s 153C of the Act and not from the date of initiation of searcheven when Section 153C(1) of the Act clearly mentions that calculation of block period has to be done from the year of search? 3. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) was justified in relying was justified in holding that block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the date of satisfaction note drawn or date of Notice issued u/s 153C of the Act, even when the position of law is clarified after the amendment introduced by Finance Act, 2017, that the block period of 6AYs and 10AYs as mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 153C and Section 153A have same meaning and have to be calculated from the "assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted"? 4. That the order of the CIT (A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 5. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

3.

Brief facts are that a notice u/s 153C was issued to the assessee on 24.08.2022, in view of incriminating evidences relating to the accommodation entries taken by the assessee from, the entities of Alankit Group on which a search was conducted u/s 132 on 18.10.2019. In response, the assessee filed return 2

ITA No.- 1479/Del/2026 Hitesh Khanna declaring total income of Rs. 5,70,710/- on 8.11.2023. Assessment was subsequently completed on 15.02.2024 at assessed income of Rs. 21,48,104/-.

3.1. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the order on legal as well as factual issues. It was contended by the assessee that the impugned assessment year falls beyond the block of six A.Y.s to the calculated from the deemed dated of search, which in this case was 24.06.2022.

3.2 Vide order dated 16.10.2025, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: -

“ 16. 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 by the concerned AO. As per record, the Satisfaction note was recorded by the AO of the searched person on 24.06.2022 and the notice u/s 153C of the Act in the instant case was issued by the AO on 24.08.2022 after receipt of the seized documents, i.e. in the F.Y. 2022-23 relevant to AY 2023-24. Therefore, by this yardstick, the six years period as referred to in section 153C(1) of the Act would be from AY 2017-18 to 2022-23 (and AY 2023-24).

17.

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 satisfaction note drawn was perused, and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced below:

ITA No.- 1479/Del/2026 Hitesh Khanna

18.

From the above it is seen that the aggregate of the income having escaped assessment for the "relevant assessment years', le 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

19.

Following the ratio of decision as per the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare (supra) which serves as a direct legal authority in the matter, 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. Relying on the above-mentioned case laws and respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd (supra), it is seen that A.V. 2014-15 is not covered within six AYs as per section 153C of the Act and the condition/s precedent for assessing it as part of the relevant assessment year's was not existent. The notice issued for the AY 2014-15 would thus fall beyond the ambit of six AYs' as provided under section 153C read with section 153A, and hence the impugned 4

ITA No.- 1479/Del/2026 Hitesh Khanna assessment order dated 15.02.2024 passed u/s 1530 of the Act forthe instant AY 2014-15 in pursuance of such notice would not survive, having no legs to stand, and is thus annulled. 20. 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 are rendered academic in nature, and hence not required to be adjudicated upon. There is hence no adjudication on merits in this case.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the facts of the case and the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High court, we hold that the decision of the CIT(A) is well reasoned and justified. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the same.

5.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2026.

SD/- SD/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 31.08.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi, 5

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →