TANUJ SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1332 & 1333/Del/2026 (Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Tanuj Sharma Vs. DCIT C-130, 2nd Floor, Central Circle – 28 Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi – 110 055 New Delhi – 110 017 PAN No. AVUPS 0424 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Ajay Wadwa, Adv., Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. and Shri Vaibhav Gupta, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Sita Shrivastava, CIT(D.R.) Date of hearing: 02.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 15.06.2026 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These two captioned appeals have been filed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘CIT(A)’) order dated 23.01.2026 arising from the assessment order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer, DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle 28, Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the AO”) u/s 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, respectively.

ITA Nos. 1332 & 1333/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2014-15 & 2015-16] Tanuj Sharma vs. DCIT 2. Since the above captioned appeals were heard together and facts in issues are identical, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity 3. Grounds of appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1332/Del/2026 are as under : 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the L.d. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is illegal, bad in law and unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in mechanically affirming the assessment order allegedly dated 31.03.2023 passed under section 153C of the Act, which is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and barred by limitation. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the assessment order dated 31.03.2023 without appreciating that the very initiation of proceedings u/s 153C for the impugned year is illegal, bad in law and void-ab-initio in as much as: 3.1. That the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person is a consolidated satisfaction note for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2020-21 and fails to specify the particular assessment year or years to which the seized material/information, which allegedly belongs to/pertains to/relates to the assessee, pertains. 3.2. That the satisfaction note recorded by the AO of assessee/other person does not refer to any material/document alleged to be seized and handed over to him by the AO of searched person 3.3. That the satisfaction note recorded by the AO of assessee/other person is a general and vague note in as much as it failed to specify the year/years in respect of which proceedings u/s 153C ought to have been initiated 3.4. That the Ld. AO of the assessee/other person failed to specify the alleged seized material have any bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee as mandated by section 153C.

Page 2 of 9

ITA Nos. 1332 & 1333/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2014-15 & 2015-16] Tanuj Sharma vs. DCIT 3.5. That the impugned assessment year falls beyond the block period of six years preceding the search year, which admittedly, in the present case, is Assessment Year 2022-23. 3.6. That even if the impugned assessment year is considered as a "relevant year" beyond the block period of six years, it could not have been reopened, as the Ld. AO failed to record any specific satisfaction regarding the fulfilment of the conditions prescribed under the fourth proviso to section 153A r.w.s.153C of the Act. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the assessment order dated 31.03.2023 without appreciating the fact that it was passed without disposing of the objection raised by the assessee against the initiation of the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 5. That the assessment order dated 11.03.2023. as affirmed by the CIT/A) is illegal, invalid and void ab initio, as the approval granted under section 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was accorded mechanically, without due application of mind, thereby vitiating the entire assessment proceedings. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made in the assessment order without appreciating that these were made on the basis of electronic evidence like 'excel-sheets/ledgers' without there being any certification under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding its authenticity and reliability. 7. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made in the assessment order without appreciating that the same were made by the Ld. AO solely on the basis of the unverified and uncorroborated statement of one Mr. Sunil Kumar Gupta, recorded at the back of the assessee, and that no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the assessee. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made by AO u/s 69 or 69A on account of alleged unexplained investment, without bringing any material on record and merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹1,50,000/- made by the Ld. AO u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure on account of alleged commission paid on the transaction of Rs. 50,00,000/-. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- made by

Page 3 of 9

ITA Nos. 1332 & 1333/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2014-15 & 2015-16] Tanuj Sharma vs. DCIT the Ld. AO u/s 69A on account of alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Newwave Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Euro Global Re- insurance, which are alleged to be bogus entities controlled by Mr. Alok Agarwal of Alankit Group. 11. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹4,80,000/- made by the Ld. AO u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure on account of alleged commission paid on the transaction of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- 12. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made without appreciating that the same were made without due consideration of the explanation of the assessee and the relevant documentary evidence furnished by him, and merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. 13. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing. 14. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made without appreciating that the same were made without due consideration of the explanation of the assessee and the relevant documentary evidence furnished by him, and merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises, 15. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 4. Relevant facts are as under: These appeals have been filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"], both dated 23.01.2026 whereby it affirmed the orders of Ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "Ld. AO"), both dated 31.03.2023 passed u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

DATE PARTICULARS REMARKS

Page 4 of 9

ITA Nos. 1332 & 1333/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2014-15 & 2015-16] Tanuj Sharma vs. DCIT 18.10.2019 Search u/s 132 carried out on Alankit Group, Sh. Alok K Agarwal, Sh. Ankit Agarwal 16.03.2022 Satisfaction note was P. NO. 18-19 of PB recorded by the AO of 'searched person' for AY 2010-11 to AY 2020-21 05.04.2022 Satisfaction note was P.NO. 26 of PB recorded by the AO of other person/assessee'

Page 5 of 9

ITA Nos. 1332 & 1333/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2014-15 & 2015-16] Tanuj Sharma vs. DCIT Satisfaction note for initiating proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961 in the case of Sh. Tanuj Sharma (PAN-AVUPS0424P) 1. A search and seizure operation was carried out in the Alankit Group of cases on 18.10.2019 subsequently the said group was centralized to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. Accordingly, during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A of Alankit Group, material/ documents related to case of Sh. Tanuj Sharma have been found. 2. Ledger of Sh. Vijay Kumar has been obtained from laptop of Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta found and seized from the residence of Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta, at 3584/4, Narang Colony, Gali No. 4 Tri Nagar Delhi (Path: F:\SKGR A-32\SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA HP LAPTOPEXTRACTED DATA\Tally [root].1\Local Disk ANARKALI BACKUP DATA24\DATA24). 3. The transactions entered into by various beneficiaries with various shell entities controlled by Alok K Agarwal, against unaccounted cash or otherwise to take accommodation entries, are as tabulated below: Name of F.Y. Transaction Amount Amount beneficiary done with debited to credited to beneficiary beneficiary Sale Cubical 2014-15 SUNIL BHALA 64,15,500 In Tanuj Sharma Tanuj Sharma 2012-13 Cash 2,50,00,000 DCPL 25,00,000 25,00,000 EURO GLOBAL 50,00,000 REINSURANCE 2013-14 EURO GLOBAL 50,00,000 REISURANCE NCPL 11,00,000 11,00,000 Cash 50,00,000 Tanuj Sharma 2012-13 Cash 21,00,000 and Anuj Sharma 4. Ledgers related to Sh. Sunil Bhala have been obtained from laptop of Sunil Kumar Gupta found and seized from the residence of Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta, at 3584/4, Narang Colony, Gali No. 4 Tri Nagar Delhi (Path: F:\SKGR A-32\SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA HP LAPTOP EXTRACTED DATA\Tally [root].1\Local Disk ANARKALI BACKUP DATA24\DATA24). There are two ledgers related to Sh. Sunil Bhala, named as  SUNIL BHALA  SUNIL BHALA (REF. VIKAS GARG)

Page 6 of 9

ITA Nos. 1332 & 1333/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2014-15 & 2015-16] Tanuj Sharma vs. DCIT 5. Further, from the analysis of ledger of Sh. Sunil Bhala, the following beneficiaries are seen to have sold shares of Cubical Financial Services Ltd, thereby taking bogus profit/loss. Sr. No. Beneficiary FY Sale consideration No. Tanuja Sharma 2014-15 64,15,500 6. The assessment proceedings are required to be taken u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the warrant Issued in the name of Sh. Alok Kumar Aggarwal, Sh. Ankit Aggarwal, M/s Alankit Ltd. and M/s Alankit Assignment. A.Y. involved: A.Y. 2010-11 to A.Y. 2020-21. Dated: 16/03/2022 Place: New Delhi Sd/- (Vinod Kumar Chaudhary) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-28, New Delhi 8. From perusal of the above Satisfaction note, we find that the Assessing Officer has not recorded that the seized material found in the course of search has any “bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee” as required under the provisions of section 153C of the Act. Therefore, in the light of the ratio of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision, in the case of Saksham Commodities Ltd. and Naveen Kumar Gupta (supra), such satisfaction note, on the basis of which notice under section 153C was issued, is considered as vitiated and invalid in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the notice under section 153C of the Act, issued in the instant case, is

Page 7 of 9

ITA Nos. 1332 & 1333/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2014-15 & 2015-16] Tanuj Sharma vs. DCIT quashed and the consequent order under section 153C is also quashed. Ground 3.4 of the appeal of assessee is allowed. 9. As the appeal is decided on one legal ground, the other legal grounds and on merits are not adjudicated.

ITA No.1333/Del/2026 for A.Y. 2015-16: 10. The facts in the instant case are identical to the facts of the case decided above. The decision therefore in ITA No.1332/Del/2026 will apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of the instant case. 11. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos. 1332 & 1333/DEL/2026 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR KUMAR) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 15.06.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Page 8 of 9