DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 32, DELHI vs. NEW CASTLE FINANCE AND LEASING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 2646/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: 2014-15] DCIT, New Castle Finance and Leasing Central Circle-32, Pvt Ltd., Room No. 359, 3rd Floor, ARA Vs 7C 1st Floor, J Block Shopping Centre E2, Jhandewalan Extension, Centre, Saket Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110055 Chirag Delhi, south Delhi-110017. PAN- AAACN0386K Revenue Assessee Assessee by Shri Madhav Kapur, Adv. Revenue by Dr. Rajinder Kaur, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 27.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 07.08.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 21.11.2025 of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi-25, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2024 passed under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by

ITA No.- 2646/Del/2026 New Castle Finance and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. Ground 1. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT, Central-1, Delhi vs Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 52 of 2024), even when the Revenue has filed a SLP against this decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Ground 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that 6 years block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the relevant AY in which date of satisfaction note drawn OR from the date of issue of Notice u/s 153C of the Act and not from the date of initiation of search even when Section 153C(1) of the Act clearly mentions that calculation of block period has to be done from the year of search. Ground 3. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in relying was justified in holding that block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the date of satisfaction note drawn OR date of Notice issued u/s 153C of the Act, even when the position of law is clarified after the amendment introduced by Finance Act, 2017, that the block period of 6AYs and 10AYs as mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 153C and Section 153A have same meaning and have to be calculated from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted. Ground 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jasjit Singh (2023 SCC Online SC 1265) and of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2015 SCC Online Del 13085), even though the facts of the instant case are different from that of Jasjit Singh case and RRJ Securities case, since the decisions rendered by the Court in Jasjit Singh as well as in RRJ Securities had dealt with a pre-2017 position (i.e. for search conducted before 1st April, 2017) and hence are clearly distinguishable. Ground 5. The present case involves organized tax evasion and accommodation entries, falling squarely within Exception (h) of 5 Para 3.1 of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to Rs. 0 appreciate the gravity of the case, requiring strict scrutiny rather than unwarranted relief..”

ITA No.- 2646/Del/2026 New Castle Finance and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 3. At the outset, it has been pointed out by the Ld. AR that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT, Central -I, Delhi vs. Ojjus Medicare P. Ltd. (ITA No.- 52 of 2024) based on which Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the assessee’s appeal. 3.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Written submissions filed by Ld. DR have bene considered and taken on record. WE first take up the legal issue regarding validity of notice u/s 153C of the Act issued by the AO. 3.2 Brief facts are that pursuant to a search action u/s 132 conducted on 18.10.2019 in Alankrit Group of cases, certain incriminating evidences pertaining to the assessee were found. Accordingly, a notice u/s 153C was issued by the AO on 28.06.2020 after recording requisite satisfaction. Subsequently, assessment u/s 153C was completed vide order dated 31.03.2024 against which the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) with the following observations: “15. As per the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi, the period of six assessment years means six years prior to the assessment year in which the seized material was handed over to the AO of the ‘other’ (non-searched) person / satisfaction note u/s 153C was recorded by the concerned AO. As seen in the case, the Satisfaction note in the instant case was recorded by the AO of the searched person on 21.06.2022, and, upon receipt of the seized documents, the satisfaction note was recorded by the AO of the ‘other person’ (appellant) on 25.06.2022 and the notice u/s 153C of the Act dated 28.06.2022 was issued by the AO, all dates pertaining to the F.Y. 2022-23 relevant to AY 2023-24. Therefore, by this yardstick, six years period as referred to in section 153C(1) of the Act would be from AY 2017-18 to 2022-23 (and 2023-24).

ITA No.- 2646/Del/2026 New Castle Finance and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 16. To ascertain whether the income escaping assessment in the relevant assessment year or the aggregate of the assessment years amounted to or was likely to amount to Rs. 50 Lakhs or more, the relevant portion of the satisfaction note drawn as seen from record and submitted by the appellant was perused, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below:

ITA No.- 2646/Del/2026 New Castle Finance and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 3.3 We further note that, in this case the date of handing over of incriminating documents was 24.06.2022, which accordingly, is to be taken as the deemed date of search u/s 153 of the Act. Accordingly, the notice u/s 153C could not have been issued after 1.4.2021, in view of clear provisions of the Act and hence the proceedings u/s 153C are invalid. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is hereby dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 07.08.2026. Pooja, Sr. Private Secretary Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,