CHANDER PARKASH GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-28, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3498, 3499 and 3500/Del/2026 (Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Chander Parkash Gupta Vs. DCIT 9 East Avenue Road, Central Circle – 28 East Punjabi Bagh, West Delhi Delhi, Delhi – 110 026 PAN No. ABLPC 7455 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Ayush Garg, C.A. Revenue by Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 10.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 10.08.2026

ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : Above captioned three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-Delhi-25 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] arising from the same assessment order under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer, DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17.

ITA Nos. 3498, 3499 and 3500/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17] Chander Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT 2. Since the above captioned appeals were heard together and the facts in issues are identical, all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Assessee filed the following grounds of appeal in above captioned appeals, which reads as under : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that, the proceedings initiated under section 153C of the Act and consequently the order passed by the learned AO under section 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act are illegal, invalid, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation and hence liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment order has been passed in clear violation of the statutory procedure and conditions prescribed under section 153C read with section 153A of the Act and as such the same is bad in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the additions made by the AO in the assessment order passed under section 153C of the Act are illegal, without jurisdiction and hence unsustainable in the absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during the course of the search of the searched person. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Act and the assessment order passed under the said section is illegal, without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed in the absence of any valid satisfaction being recorded by the assessing officer of the searched person as well as assessing officer of the assessee. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the learned AO has erred in issuing notice under section 153C of the Act and completing the assessment under the said section without recording any valid independent satisfaction upon the material or document relied upon by him, that has bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the satisfaction recorded by the assessing Page 2 of 10

ITA Nos. 3498, 3499 and 3500/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17] Chander Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT officer for initiating proceeding under section 153C is illegal, invalid, mechanical in nature and has been recorded without application of mind. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Act and consequential assessment order are illegal, barred by limitation and thus, liable to be quashed as the satisfaction note has been recorded beyond the stipulated time limit. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings under section 153C initiated against the assessee are beyond the permissible period as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC) dated 12.03.2014 and accepted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No. 24/2015 dated 31.12.2015. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C and the consequential reassessment order passed under section 153C r.w.s 143(3) are invalid, illegal, unsustainable and liable to be quashed, as the satisfaction note has been recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person and that of the assessee collectively for various Assessment Years and without identifying or linking alleged material to any specific Assessment Year 11. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the learned AO has erred in passing the order under section 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act without obtaining valid prior approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act. (ii) That the purported approval is illegal, mechanical in nature and has been given without application of mind. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of AO despite the fact that the notice issued under section 153C of the Act and the consequent reassessment proceedings are illegal, invalid and void ab initio in law, as the alleged "deemed date of search" under section falls on or after 01.04.2021, and therefore, in view of the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, the provisions of section 153C are not applicable and the AO was mandatorily required to follow the procedure prescribed under section 148 read with section 148A of the Act. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact the notice issued under section 153C and consequent assessment order is illegal, barred by limitation and liable to be quashed as the notice under section 153C has been issued ignoring the provisions of fourth proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act. 14. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the satisfaction notes recorded by AO of searched person and AO of other person under section 153C of the Act have been issued Page 3 of 10

ITA Nos. 3498, 3499 and 3500/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17] Chander Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT without there being valid Document Identification Number (DIN) quoted on the body of the satisfaction note, violating the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. 15. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee assessment order passed by the AO is illegal, without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed in the absence of any valid notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act. 16. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 40,397/- made by the AO holding that assessee has received cash from Alankit Group invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions and explanations submitted by the assessee to prove that no such cash was received by the assessee. (iii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed despite there being no evidence brought on record by the AO to justify that such cash has been received by the assessee. 17. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,211/- made by the AO on account of alleged commission under section 69C of the Act (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed despite the fact that no such expenditure was incurred by the appellant and the abovesaid addition has been made merely on presumptions and assumptions at an arbitrary rate of 3% without any cogent basis. 18. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,72,070/- made by the AO holding that assessee has paid cash to Alankit Group invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions and explanations submitted by the assessee to prove that no such cash was paid by the assessee. (iii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed despite there being no evidence brought on record by the AO to justify that such cash has been paid by the assessee. 19. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the abovesaid additions made by the AO by indulging in surmises and conjectures without bringing on any direct evidence against the assessee, only on the basis of presumption and assumption. 20. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the additions made under sections 69A and 69C of the Act despite the said provisions are not applicable to the facts of the case and consequently provisions of section 115BBE of the Act are not applicable.

Page 4 of 10

ITA Nos. 3498, 3499 and 3500/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17] Chander Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT 21. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by the AO based on the basis of statements recorded at the back of the assessee without providing opportunity of cross-examination of those statements. 22. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by the AO on the basis of material collected at the back of the appellant without affording adequate opportunity to rebut the same, in violation of the principles of natural justice. 23. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions despite the fact that the same has been made AO without concluding the independent enquiry conducted during the course of assessment proceedings to the logical end. 24. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that a search has been carried out in the case of the Alankit Group (third party) on 18.10.2019. Satisfaction has been recorded on 24.06.2022 and 15.09.2022 by the AO of searched person and notice under section 153C of the Act has been issued to the assessee on 29.09.2022. Thus, assessment order u/s 153C was completed by the AO by making a total additions of Rs.19,76,286/- [Rs.12,94,490/- (for A.Y. 2014-15), Rs.3,68,118/- (for A.Y. 2015-16) and Rs.3,13,678/- (for A.Y. 2016-17) ]. 5. Aggrieved, assessee was in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who vide order dated 11.02.2026, upheld the additions made by the AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that as the satisfaction, in the case of the assessee, was recorded on 15.09.2022, the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which Page 5 of 10

ITA Nos. 3498, 3499 and 3500/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17] Chander Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT search is conducted or requisition is made, as per the first proviso of section 153C, becomes A.Y. 2023-24. The ld AR further argued that income which has escaped assessment, represented in form of asset, for the impugned A.Ys 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17, is less than Rs 50 lakh, and therefore, they are out of the block of ten assessment years for which assessment could be made. The ld AR argued therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction for making assessment u/s 153C of the Act. The ld. counsel for the assessee also relied upon the the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd & Others [2024] 161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi) order dated 03.04.2024. 7. The ld AR further argued that the AO has not recorded in the Satisfaction Note that the seized material discovered is likely to "have a bearing on the determination of the total income" for the years under consideration. The ld AR relied on Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Saksham Commodities Limited, [2024] 464 ITR 1, 8. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that this issue of the date of search for non-searched persons covered under section 153C, is no longer res-integra and is now been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh 458 ITR 437(SC) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd [2024] [supra]. Page 6 of 10

ITA Nos. 3498, 3499 and 3500/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17] Chander Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT 9. The law as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court as above, mandates that as per first proviso of section 153C of the Act, the commencement date for computation of the six/ten assessment years is deemed to be the date of receipt of books of account/materials/asset of non-searched person, by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the non-searched person.

ITA Nos. 3498, 3499 and 3500/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17] Chander Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT therefore they are out of the block of ten assessment years for which assessment could be made as follows: Computation Additions of the ten- made by year block AO period 1st year AY 2023-24 2nd Year AY 2022-23 3rd year AY2021-22 4th year AY2020-21 5th year AY2019-20 6th year AY2018-19 7th year AY2017-18 8th year AY2016-17 3,13,678 Time barred as it is beyond six AY from 9th year AY2015-16 3,68,118 date of deemed search and do not fall 10th year within relevant assessment years as per AY2014-15 12,94,490 4th proviso to section 153A as escapement is less than 50 Lakh

We therefore, hold that the decision of the CIT(A) is legally deficient and accordingly quash the impugned assessment orders having been made without legal and valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act. The ground is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10.08.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 19.08.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps* Page 8 of 10

ITA Nos. 3498, 3499 and 3500/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17] Chander Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Page 9 of 10