M/S SUMAJA ELECTROINFRA PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 24(3), DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “H” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA Nos. 6201 to 6204/Del/2025 [Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2015-16] SUMAJA ELECTROINFRA vs DCIT, CC-28, ARA CENTRE PVT. LTD., JHANDEWALAN 5/14, MODEL TOWN, EXTENSION, NEW DELHI DR. MUKHERJEE NAGAR, DELHI – 110 009 [PAN: AAKCS3079C] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent by Shri Bhopal Singh, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 25.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.08.2026

ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM :

These 04 appeals filed by the assessee emanates from the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-25), New Delhi ([CIT(A)] for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. Since the issues involved in these appeals are similar and identical and relate to one assessee, hence, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for

the sake of convenience, by dealing with facts of ITA No. 6201/Del/2025 (AY 2013-14). 2. For the captioned assessment years, the assesee has raised the following common additional grounds on jurisdiction side, by stating that in view of the NTPC decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the additional grounds may kindly be admitted and adjudicated first being legal in nature. “That the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in passing the assessment order u/s. 153C is vitiated in the present case, as in this case, the search was conducted on 18.10.2019 and the notice u/s. 153C was issued after 1.4.2021, whereas the provisions of section did not exist after 1.4.2021 and hence, the assessment proceedings are bad in law for the want of jurisdiction.” “That it is a trite law that the date of handing over of the documents / recording of the satisfaction note is to be considered as the triggered date in the case of the other person, and such date in the present case, falls after 1.4.2021, when the provisions of section 153C were already repealed.” “That in the present facts of the matter, the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to conduct assessment proceedings u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act in the case of the appellant and reliance in this regard is placed on the judgement of Hargovind vs. ACIT (2025) 180 taxmann.com 197 (Madras) and other similar matters.” 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records and in view of the NTPC decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we admit the

aforesaid additional grounds of appeal and are being adjudicated the same. 4. Brief facts of the case are that a search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 18.10.2019 on the Alankit group, incriminating evidences revealing a network of accommodation entries involving routing of unaccounted cash through various companies owned / controlled by Sh. Alok Kumar Agarwal were found. Some incriminating documents were found in the name of the assessee. The case of the assessee was centralized and proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act was carried out. Notice was issued u/s. 153C of the Act on 25.1.2023, the assessee filed its return of income on 1.3.2023 declaring total income of Rs. 10,03,950/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment assessing the total income of the assessee for the year at Rs. 3,19,03,950/- as against the returned income. Against the action of the AO, assessee preferred the appeal before the CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 19.9.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted order passed by the AO is illegal and ab inito void. The assumption of jurisdiction by the AO u/s. 153C that as per first proviso of the Act is illegal and hence, all the subsequent proceedings are also liable to be quashed. In this case notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee company on 25.01.2023 on the basis of documents / material relating to the assessee company allegedly seized during the course of search operations on 18.10.2019 conducted on the Alankit Group. It was further

argued that in the present case the satisfaction note in terms of section 153C was recorded on 14.2.2022. According to the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jasjit Singh reported in 458 ITR 437 (SC) wherein search conducted at 3rd party premises and seized material were handed over, the date of handing over of the seized material was to be construed as date of initiation of search action, the other person in terms of provisions of section 153C of the Act. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court has confirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court. Accordingly, learned counsel for the assesse argued that in terms of satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer dated 14.2.2022 when he received the seized material. Ld. Counsel further argued that as there is amendment in the provisions of sub- section 3 of section 153C whereby as per first proviso there is a bar for invoking the provisions of section 153C of the Act with effect from 1 April 2021. Ld. Counsel stated that in the present case also the documents were received by the AO of the assessee on 14.2.2022 on which date he recorded his satisfaction which is enclosed in the APB that means the AO issued notice u/s. 153C of the Act is bad in law whereas assessment should have been framed u/s. 148 read with section 143(3) of the Act. For this proposition, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the CIT vs. Jasjit Singh (Supra) and the also the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Harigovind vs. ACIT 485 ITR 509 (Madras). 6. Ld. Ld. CIT (DR) did not controvert the above fact situation, but he relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstance of the case. We noted that the search was conducted on Alankit

Group of cases u/s 132 of the Act on 18.10.2019. The Assesse Company being other person then the searched person, his incriminating material were handed over by the AO of the other person, other than the searched person to the AO of the assessee on 14.2.2022 when satisfaction note was recorded. There is no dispute about these facts. Admittedly, assessment was also framed by the AO of the assessee u/s. 153C of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14 on 30.3.2023. By virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 153C of the Act which was effective from 1.4.2021 where a search initiated after 1.4.2021 the proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act are not valid and applicable, but the provisions of section 148 of the Act are applicable. In the case of the assessee since the satisfaction note was recorded on 14.2.2022 i.e. after 1.4.2021 the deemed date of search in the case of the assessee person other than the searched person shall be date of recorded of satisfaction note in view of the decision of the of CIT vs. Jasjit Singh reported in 458 ITR 437 (SC), thus, the satisfaction note recorded on or after 1.4.2021 is bad in law. The relevant portion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the CIT vs. Jasjit Singh read as under:- “9. It is evident on a plain interpretation of Section 153C(1) that the Parliamentary intent to enact the proviso was to cater not merely to the question of abatement but also with regard to the date from which the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of which the returns were to be filed by the third party (whose premises are not searched and in respect of whom the specific provision under section 153C was enacted. The revenue argued that the proviso [to Section 153©(1)] is confined in its application to the question of abatement. 10. This Court is of the opinion that the revenue’s argument is insubstantial and without merit. It is quite plausible that

without the kind of interpretation which SSP Aviation adopted, the AO seized of the materials – of the search party, under section 132 – would take his own time to forward the papers and materials belonging to the third party, to the concerned AO. In that even if the date would virtually “relate back” as is sought to be contended by the revenue, (to the date of the seizure), the prejudice caused to the third party, who would be drawn into proceedings as it were unwittingly (and in many cases have no concern with it at all), is disproportionate. For instance, if the papers are in fact assigned under section 153C after a period of four years, the third party assessee’s prejudice in writ large as it would have to virtually preserve the records for at least 10 years which is not the requirement in law. Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be attributed to Parliament. On the other hand, a plain reading of section 153-C supports the interpretation which this Court adopts. 8. Further, Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Harigovind vs. ACIT (Supra) has considered this issue and held that in case where search is initiated after 1st April 2021 the provisions of section 153C will not apply and assessment can only be framed in terms of section 148 of the Act. Hon’ble Madras High Court considered decision of Honorable Supreme Court in the case of CIT versus Jasjit Singh (supra) and has held as under:- 47. A reading of the above shows that the Hon’ble Apex Court had rejected the contention of the respondent and hence, it is clear that the first proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 153C is not only for the purpose of abatement but also for all other purposes, viz., initiation of search for other person in terms of section 153C(3) of the Act. In such case, the date of initiation of search for the petitioner is the date, on which the documents were

handed over to the JAO of the petitioner, i.e., 25.11.2022 is the date of initiation of search for the petition. 48. In terms of Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of Section 153C, the provision of Section 153C will not apply for any search, which is initiated on or after 1.4.2021. 49. As stated above, in this case, the date of handing over of seized material to the petitioner’s JAO is on 25.11.2022 And the said date is the date of initiation of search for the petitioner. Thus, in the present case, it is crystal clear like cloudless sky that the initiation of search was subsequent to 1.4.2021, for which, the provisions of section 153C will not apply. Therefore, the impugned notices dated 7.2.2023 is unsustainable and the same were issued without authority and against the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 153C of the Act. 50. In such view of the matter, all the impugned notices are liable be quashed and accordingly, all the impugned notices dated 7.2.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent are quashed.” 9. As the issues are covered, in the present case notice under section 153C of the Act dated 25.01.2023 is without jurisdiction and hence quashed and its consequent assessment is also quashed. As regards other pleadings are concerned the same have become academic. 10. Our aforesaid decision will apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals relevant to assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 and thus the same are also allowed in the aforesaid manner.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRBhatnagar

Date: 19-08-2026