RAJIV SHAMSHERBAHADUR SAXENA,KARNATAKA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 20, DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8430/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 August 2026AY 2010-116 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 assessment year in question was outside the permissible block period for reassessment under Section 153A, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Ojus Medicare. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges the invocation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act for AY 2010-11. The core issue is whether the assessment year falls within the permissible block period for reassessment following a search.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of invoking Section 153A when the assessment year was beyond the prescribed block period, rendering the assessment illegal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 144C(13),Section 144,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, “H” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Pronounced: 12.08.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िद�ी पीठ�, नई िद�ी INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, “H” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 8430/DEL/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2010-11) RAJIV SHAMSHERBAHADUR DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 20, SAXENA DELHI VILLA NO 20,LAUGHING ROOM NO 269B,2ND FLOOR, WATERS,OLD AIR ARA CENTRE,2-E, Vs. PORT,VARTHUR ROAD, JHANDEWALAN EXTENTION, SIDDAPURA WHITEFILED, NEW DELHI-110055 BENGALURU-560066, KARNATAKA अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: BBHPS4880H

Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr, Adv, Sh. Rajat Manchanda, Adv, अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Sh. Deepanshu Bharti, Adv, & Sh. Soham Dua, Adv ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 04.08.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 12.08.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 20, Delhi, dated 21.10.2025 arising out of direction of learned Dispute Resolution Pannel (in short ‘ld. DRP’) dated 17.12.2022, passed under section 153A r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s. 144 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. Invalid Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 153A 1.1 On the facts and in law, the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (“Ld. AO”) and the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (“Hon’ble DRP”) have erred in invoking and sustaining proceedings under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in absence of satisfaction of the mandatory jurisdictional pre- conditions. 1.2 The assessment for the relevant assessment year was unabated as on the date of search, and hence no addition could be made in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search, as judicially settled by various High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 1.3 The assessment had already attained finality and could not have been re-opened under section 153A in absence of fresh incriminating material. 1.4 The materials relied upon by the Ld. AO were already available on record or in possession of the department prior to search and therefore do not satisfy the test of “incriminating material” under section 153A. 1.5 The Ld. AO further erred in relying upon foreign transaction data, which is not incriminating in nature and has no nexus with the Appellant’s alleged undisclosed income. 1.6 No incriminating document, loose paper, digital evidence or material was found during search which pertains to the Appellant or which relates to the alleged additions. 2. Gross Violation of Principles of Natural Justice 2.1 The Ld. AO and the Hon’ble DRP have grossly violated the principles of natural justice by denying proper and reasonable opportunity to the Appellant to present his case. 2.2 Statements allegedly recorded under section 132(4) and Excel sheets relied upon were not furnished during assessment proceedings and were provided only subsequently, rendering the opportunity illusory and ineffective. Page 2 of 6 2.3 The additions pertain to Assessment Year 2010-11, however, no year-wise or transaction-wise details were provided in the show cause notices. 2.4 The Ld. the AO failed to provide item-wise and entry-wise working of the proposed additions, thereby preventing meaningful rebuttal. 2.5 The entire assessment is vitiated for non-compliance with audi alteram partem. 3 Unreasonable and Insufficient Opportunity of Hearing 3.1 The Ld. the AO granted only five working days for filing reply to the show-cause notice, contrary to CBDT’s Standard Operating Procedure mandating a minimum of seven working days. 3.2 The assessment is therefore liable to be quashed for want of reasonable opportunity and violation of procedural safeguards. 4 Non-Speaking and Mechanical DRP Order The Hon’ble DRP erred in issuing directions mechanically without considering the detailed written submissions, evidences, judicial precedents, and factual contentions placed on record by the Appellant. The DRP order is non-reasoned, cryptic and unsustainable in law. 5 Transactions Do Not Belong to the Appellant The authorities below erred in attributing foreign transactions to the Appellant, even though it is admitted that the same pertain to third-party entities / firms / LLPs and not to the individual Appellant. 6 Reliance on Non-Incriminating and Irrelevant Material 6.1 The AO wrongly relied upon documents not belonging to the Appellant and having no income-tax nexus. 6.2 The AO himself accepted that the concerned parties are Non- Residents residing outside India. 6.3 No addition can be sustained without establishing source, ownership and taxability in India. Without prejudice to above, no addition can be made without going in to each and every aspect and each entry of the matter and establishing that income has arising in India.

3.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr Advocate submitted that it has raised legal grounds of appeal, inter alia, including erroneous invocation of proceedings u/s 153A of the Act. Thus, our attention was invited to grounds of appeal no.1 challenging the validity of proceedings u/s 153A. The ld. Counsel submitted that its case is fully covered with the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojus Medicare. It was requested that consequently its legal grounds of appeal no.1 be adjudicated first in preference our other grounds of appeal.

4.

The ld. Counsel submitted that the impugned assessment was completed/s 153A as a consequence to search u/s 132 of the Act on 30.06.2019. It was argued that by virtue of the search proceedings AY 2020-21 became the year of search to be counted as first year for calculation of block of 10 years. It was submitted that within the meanings of ratio laid down in the case of Ojus Medicare. 2024 (4) tmi 268, accordingly, AY 2010-11 assailed in the present appeal would become 11th year and hence barred by limitation.

5.

The ld. CIT-DR, Shri Bhopal Singh, placed reliance upon the orders of lower authorities.

6.

We have heard rival submissions in the light of material placed on record. We have noted that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-central-1 versus Ojjus Medicare Pvt. ltd. and others, 2024 (4) tmi 268 – in its order dated- April 3, 2024 has ruled as under:- "D. The First Proviso to Section 153C introduces a legal fiction on the basis of which the commencement date for computation of the six year or the ten year block is deemed to be the date of receipt of books of accounts by the jurisdictional AO. The identification of the starting block for the purposes of computation of the six and the ten year period is governed by the First Proviso to Section 153C, which significantly shifts the reference point spoken of in Section 153A(1), while defining the point from which the period of the "relevant assessment year" is to be calculated, to the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the non- searched person. The shift of the relevant date in the case of a non-searched person being regulated by the First Proviso of Section 153C(1) is an issue which is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively settled by virtue of the decisions of this Court in SSP Aviation and RRJ Securities as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasjit Singh. The aforesaid legal position also stood reiterated by the Supreme Court in Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia. The submission of the respondents, therefore, that the block periods would have to be reckoned with reference to the date of search can neither be countenanced nor accepted. E. The reckoning of the six AYs' would require one to firstly identify the FY in which the search was undertaken and which would lead to the ascertainment of the AY relevant to the previous year of search. The block of six AYs' would consequently be those which immediately precede the AY relevant to the year of search. In the case of a search assessment undertaken in terms of Section 153C, the solitary distinction would be that the previous year of search would stand substituted by the date or the year in which the books, of accounts or documents and assets seized are handed over to the jurisdictional AO as opposed to the year of search which constitutes the basis for an assessment under Section 153A." 7. We have noted that the facts of the present case are identical to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Ojus Medicare (supra). Accordingly, in respectful compliance to the impugned order, we set-aside the order of lower authorities and quash the assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s. 144, dated 21.10.2025. The grounds of appeal no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

8.

As we have allowed the ground of appeal no.1 of the appellant on legal grounds, all other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant has become academic in nature and hence kept open.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [SUDHIR PAREEK] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 12.08.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

Page 6 of 6

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →