YIELD PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,GHAZIABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 26,DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1766/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 July 2026AY 2016-176 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 proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the satisfaction note was recorded after April 1, 2021, making the deemed search year fall after the stipulated date. Additionally, a consolidated satisfaction note without specific adverse material was deemed not in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged assessment orders passed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention was the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer, arguing that proceedings should have been initiated under Section 147.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were validly initiated given the date of the satisfaction note and the nature of the satisfaction recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. VipinGarg, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Ashok Gautam, CIT, DR
Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 29.07.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

These appeals preferred by the Assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in

P a g e | 2 ITA Nos. 1733 & 1766/Del/2026 Yield Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17 & 2017-18) appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 153C/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under: -

ITA No. & Ld. FAA who passed Appeal No. & Date of AO who passed the AY the appellate order order of the Ld. FAA assessment order & Date of order 1766/D/26 CIT(A)-25 DIN & Order No : ITO, Ward 27(4) 2016-17 Delhi ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- Delhi 26/1083052695(1) Dated 25.02.2019 Dated: 27/11/2025 1733/D/26 CIT(A)-25 DIN & Order No : DCIT, CC-26 2017-18 Delhi ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- Delhi 26/1083053460(1) Dated 20.02.2024 Dated 27.11.2025

2.

These appeals were heard together as they involve a common question of law raised as additional ground at the time of hearing and same being admissible under Rule 11 and relying decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryna High Court in VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT; [2016] 74 taxmann.com 33 (P&H), the ground was admitted. The ld. Counsel contested and challenged the impugned assessment order on wrongful assumption of jurisdiction wherein assessment has been completed u/s 153C of the Act while same should have been under section 147 of the Act.

P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 1733 & 1766/Del/2026 Yield Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17 & 2017-18) 3. Ld. Counsel has pointed out that satisfaction note was recorded in the case of assesse on 05.08.2022 and by virtue of Section 153C(3) of the Act as the deemed year of search year falls after 01.04.2021 the assessment could not have been completed u/s 153C of the Act.

3.

Ld. DR has defended the proposition by submitting that provision of deemed year cannot change the initial search year, which is before 01.04.2021. However, we find that it is now settled law that in case of non-searched person the date of recording of satisfaction or receipt of record by assessing officer of non-searched person, has to be considered, the date of search and accordingly the years of reopening can be considered. In the case of assesse the satisfaction note has been recorded on 05.08.2022, therefore, date of search as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasjit Singh [2023] 458 ITR 437 (SC), the deemed search year becomes 2022-23 and therefore, in terms of Section 153C(3) of the Act, the proceedings u/s 153C could not have been conducted and the revenue could have resorted to proceedings of Section 147 of the Act. The reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Harigovind Vs. ACIT, (2025) 180 taxman.com 197 (Madras) and the view has been followed by Coordinate Benches in

P a g e | 4 ITA Nos. 1733 & 1766/Del/2026 Yield Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17 & 2017-18) ITA7033/Del/2025, order dated 10.02.2026 and Geetanjali Bhayana Versus DCIT 183 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi Trib).

4.

In the light of aforesaid the ground deserves to be sustained.

5.

Further, ld. Counsel has also pointed out the consolidation note issued for a block of 7 years for AY: 2014-15 to AY: 2020-21 computed from the date of search and without any seized material/document merely on the basis of ledger account which have been already part of regular books of accounts.

6.

Ld. Dr though defended the issue by submitting that when there is reference to material it is not material that satisfaction should be individually granted.

7.

However, we find that in the satisfaction note copy of which is available in paper book 96-97, there is merely reference of some digital devices and electronic evidence have found, however, there is no mention of any adverse material qua, assesse indicating how this material is bearing on the escapement of income with regard to years involved for reopening from the 2014-15 to 2020-21 and similar consolidated satisfaction note, arising out of same group search of Alankit Group has been subject of judicial scrutiny before Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Saksham

P a g e | 5 ITA Nos. 1733 & 1766/Del/2026 Yield Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 161 taxmann.com 485 (Delhi). Hon’ble Supreme Court in [2025] 180 taxmann.com 293 (SC) has also upheld the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in DCIT Versus Sunil Kumar Sharma, [2024]159 taxmann.com (Karnataka) and the Coordinate Bench decisions in Elegant IT Solutions Private Ltd. Versus DCIT ITA No. 7363/Del/@025 order dated 24.06.2026, Sudhir Kumar Gupta V DCIT ITA 7952 to 7956/Del/2025 order dated 20.05.2026 and JSP Projects Pvt. Versus DCIT ITA No. 3594/Delhi/2025 and it is held that such consolidated satisfaction note is not in accordance with law. Thus, the corresponding ground in this regard also deserves to be sustained.

8.

As a consequence of aforesaid determination of grounds, the appeals are allowed and the impugned assessment order are quashed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Awasthi) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 29.07.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS

P a g e | 6 ITA Nos. 1733 & 1766/Del/2026 Yield Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →