MAHENDAR KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, DELHI, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 898/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 July 2026AY 2016-173 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 quashed the assessments framed under Section 153C, holding that the AO's satisfaction was not recorded with sufficient clarity regarding the bearing of seized materials on the assessee's income, relying on the Saksham Commodities Ltd. case.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 153C based on a search conducted in another group's case. The satisfaction recorded by the AO for initiating these proceedings lacked clarity on whether the seized materials had a bearing on the assessee's income.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the legality of the Section 153C assessment due to the AO's unclear satisfaction regarding the relevance of seized materials from a search in another group's case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv, Ms. Sejal Arora, Adv
Hearing: 28.07.2026Pronounced: 28.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 897 to 901/Del/2026 Assessment Years: 2015-16 to 2019-20

Mahender Kumar Soni Vs Deputy Commissioner of AG-366, Shalimar Bagh, Income Tax, North West Delhi- 110088 ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi- 110 055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ANHPS4082N

Assessee by: Sh. Salil Kaporr, Adv. Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Ms. Sejal Arora, Adv. Sh. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 28.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement:28.07.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: These assessee’s five appeals ITA No. 897 to 901/Del/2026, for assessment years 2015-16 to 2019-20, respectively; arise against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (for short, “the CIT(A)”), New Delhi’s orders all dated 11.11.2025, passed in Orders No. 10808/2015-15, 11157/2015-16, 10785/2016-17, 10664/2017-18 & 10749/2018-19, involving proceedings u/s 153Cof the Act. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2 2. We notice at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue on legality of the impugned section 153C assessment framed by the learned Assessing Officer on 20.02.2024 in the assessee’s case.

A few relevant facts may be noticed.

3.

There is no dispute between the parties that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in question on 18.10.2019 in M/s. Alankit group of cases. The learned Assessing Officer of the said searched party thereafter recorded his satisfaction on 21.06.2022 (page 1-6) in the paper-book that the corresponding valuable assets found/seized during the course of search in fact required initiation of section 153C proceedings against the assessee i.e. a third person. He forwarded the relevant case records to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer who recorded his latter satisfaction under section 153C on 04.11.2022 without even making explicitly clear that the aforesaid seized materials or valuables or assets had “a bearing” in the assessee’s case (page 07-08 in the paper-book).

4.

Faced with this situation, learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues that we need not adopt such a hyper technical approach once the Assessing Officer’s aforesaid satisfaction had been duly recorded in tune with the procedure prescribed in the statute itself.

3 5. All these Revenue’s arguments fail to impress upon us. We make it clear at the cost of repetition that the assessee’s Assessing Officer had nowhere recorded a satisfaction that the valuables/assets in question found/seized during the course of search had any “bearing” on determination of the assessee’s total income. Case law Saksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1 (Delhi)(HC) has already settled the very issue in the asseessee’s favour and against the department to the very effect. We thus quash all the impugned assessments framed in assessee’s case in very terms.

All other pleadings/arguments between the parties stand rendered academic.

6.

These assessee’s five appeals ITA No. 897 to 901/Del/2026 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28.07.2026 *Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →