SHASHI GARG,DELHI vs. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1318 & 1319/Del/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sashi Garg, Vs. ACIT, B-9, Bhagwan Dass Nagar, Central Circle-28, East Punjabi Bagh, Ashoka Delhi Park Extn. S.O. Shivaji Park, West Delhi, Delhi PAN: AAJPG3275E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv. Sh. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Rastogi, Adv. Department by Sh. Rajesh Chandra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 20.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 20.08.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos.1318 & 1319/Del/2026 for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s-25 orders, both dated 08.12.2025 having DINs and orders no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1083438798(1) and

ITA Nos.1318 & 1319/Del/2026

1083438798(1), involving proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively. 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 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 on 15.03.2022 relating to assessment years 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 before us. Learned counsel has duly placed the same on record. A perusal thereof

2 | P a g e

ITA Nos.1318 & 1319/Del/2026

indicates that the learned Assessing Officer nowhere made it clear in the impugned satisfaction note dated 15.03.2022, 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.

3 | P a g e

ITA Nos.1318 & 1319/Del/2026

All other pleadings on merits between the parties stand rendered academic. 6. These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 1318 & 1319/Del/2026 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th August, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 9th September, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

4 | P a g e