MOHINDER KUMAR MALHOTRA,SOUTH DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 14, NEW DELHI

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 65 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

Coming to the first and foremost legal issue arising for our apt adjudication herein, we note that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in question on 03.02.2021 in Mr. Samir Modi group of cases. And that the Assessing Officer of the said searched party recorded his section 153C former round of satisfaction on 16.03.2023 that the jewellery found/seized in course thereof amounting to Rs. 27,60,050/- in fact belonged to the assessee. He, accordingly forwarded the entire case records/ seized material to the assessee’s Assessing Officer; who, in turn, got recorded the latter round of section 153C satisfaction (Page 13 in the case records) nowhere specifying that same had “a bearing” on determination of his taxable income.

Learned CIT(DR) vehement states in this factual backdrop that we ought to appreciate the totality of circumstances wherein such a satisfaction note may not always state that the corresponding seized material must have “a bearing” explicitly in his latter round of satisfaction.

We are afraid that Revenue’s foregoing stand hardly deserves to be accepted once case law Saksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1 (Delhi) has already settled the issue in the assessee’s favour that such a failure on the Assessing Officer’s part is very much fatal to validity of the impugned proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.