GARNET VENEER AND DECORS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, JHANDEWALAN EXTN.

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7226/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 August 2026AY 2020-20215 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was recorded beyond the prescribed time limit, thus vitiating the assumption of jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 153C was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 42 days, which was condoned by the tribunal. The core issue revolved around the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO validly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C when the satisfaction note was recorded beyond the statutory time limits, and if such delay vitiates the assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: ANUBHAV SHARMA

Pronounced: 14.08.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 24.07.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1078851588(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 13.03.2024 u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi, for AY: 2019-20.

2.

At the time of hearing, it was pointed out that there is a delay of 42 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal and in regard to which ld. Counsel has brought on record an application in condonation of delay and considering the reasons cited therein and as the delay is not of substantial period the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

3.

Then, ld. Counsel has drawn our attention to notice u/s 153C of the Act dated 14.03.2023 available at page No. 221 of the paper book by which ld. AO has assumed jurisdiction. Further, copy of assessment has been placed on record in the case of search person Alok Kumar Agarwal for AY:

201011 which shows that jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act was concluded on 24.05.2022. At page no. 103 copy of satisfaction note dated 24.06.2022 for AY; 2014-15 to AY; 2020-21 recorded by the AO on searched person has been provided at page No 104 copy of satisfaction note dated 07.02.203 recorded for initiating proceedings u/s 153C recorded by AO of the assesse has been provided. Admittedly, the case of assesse u/s 153C is an outcome of a search carried on 18.10.2019 in Alankit Group of Cases. These aforesaid facts at one hand reflect that in regard to search conducted on 18.10.2019 the satisfaction note in case of assesse was recorded on 24.06.2022 by the AO on search person and this dates falls beyond 01.04.2026, therefore, provisions of Section 153(3) of the Act come in application and assessment could not have been conducted u/s 153C but may have been u/s 147 of the Act. At the same time, when assessment in case of search person was completed on 24.05.2022 subsequently, on 24.06.2022 satisfaction note by the AO of search person was recorded and the satisfaction note of the AO of the assesse have non searched person was recorded on 07.02.2023. In regard to this delay in assumption of jurisdiction reliance is placed by the ld. Counsel on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Bharat Bhushan Jain vide ITA No. 648/2009 order dated 08.01.2015 wherein relying that decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Calcuta Knitwears, Ludhiana reported in 362 ITR 673 (SC) such delay has been found to be of the nature vitiating the assumption of jurisdiction and passing of assessment order. As a consequence of the aforesaid ground No. 2 is sustained. The appeal is allowed and the impugned assessment order is quashed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- AMITABH SHUKLA ANUBHAV SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 14.08.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy to: GARNET VENEER AND DECORS LIMITED, E-13/29, FIRST FLOOR HARSHA BHAWAN, 1 CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001, DELHI DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, 2 ROOM NO-327 ,ARA CENTRE JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI-110055, DELHI 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →