ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI, DELHI vs. PBG EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These Revenue’s seven appeals involve the twin assessees herein M/s. Krishna Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. PBG Exim Pvt. Ltd. Its instant former three appeals ITA Nos. 1226 to 1228/Del/2026 in M/s. Krishna Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2011-12 to 2013-14 arise against Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -25 (in short “PCIT”) New Delhi’s orders, all dated 13.10.2025 passed in case no. 10153/2010-11, 10188/2011-12 and 10292/2012-13 and four appeals ITA Nos.1244 to 1247/Del/2026 in the latter assessee’s cases are directed against the very CIT(A)’s orders, all dated 09.10.2025, passed in case nos. 10131/2009-10, 10166/2010-11, 10197/2011-12 and 10289/2012-13; respectively, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Heard the Revenue as well as the twin assessees at length. None present at the former assessee’s cases. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. Case files perused. 3. For the reasons stated in the Revenue’s condonation averments, delay of 3 days in filing of the instant seven appeals is

2 | P a g e

ITA Nos.1226 to 1228/Del/2026 & ITA Nos. 1244 to 1247/Del/2026

condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 4. It transpires at the outset during the course of hearing that the Revenue/appellant before us is aggrieved against the learned CIT(A)’s identical lower appellate findings quashing both the sets of section 153C assessments framed in its twin assessees’ hands. 5. A combined perusal of the instant case files further suggests that the learned departmental authorities had carried the search in question on 18.10.2019 in M/s. Alankit group of cases. And that the learned Assessing Officer of the said searched party(ies) thereafter recorded his satisfaction under section 153C and forwarded the relevant seized material to these twin assessees’ respective Assessing Officers who in turn proceeded to record his latter round of satisfaction followed by initiation of the impugned proceedings in their respective cases on 23.08.2022 and 26.06.2022; respectively. All this thereafter culminated in the Assessing Officer’s corresponding assessments framed in these twin assessees’ hands which stand quashed in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion who has concluded that all these assessment

3 | P a g e

ITA Nos.1226 to 1228/Del/2026 & ITA Nos. 1244 to 1247/Del/2026

years fall beyond the maximum time period of ten years when counted from the preceding twin satisfactions. This is what leaves the Revenue aggrieved. 6. Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the CIT(A)’s action quashing all these impugned assessments. Learned CIT-DR vehemently argues that all these assessment years starting from AY 2010-11 are very much covered within the maximum time period of 10 years when counted from the date of search itself i.e. 18.10.2019. His endeavour in other words is to treat the date of actual search herein carried out in the M/s. Alankit group of cases for the purpose of accounting the relevant time period of ten years in these twin assessees’ respective cases. 7. We make it clear that section 153C(1) 1st proviso; as interpreted in CIT-7 Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del), PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd., (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh (2024) 465 ITR 101 (SC), itself stipulates that the date of initiation of search in such a third party’s cases is the date of recording of section 153C latter satisfaction only. Their lordships further hold that for the purpose of counting the

4 | P a g e

ITA Nos.1226 to 1228/Del/2026 & ITA Nos. 1244 to 1247/Del/2026

maximum ten assessment years from such a date, it is the end of the corresponding assessment year relevant to the previous year when latter satisfaction is recorded which comes to AY 2023-24 going up to AY 2014-15 only i.e. AY 2013-14 and these preceding to that are very well beyond the scope thereof. 8. Learned CIT(DR) at this stage seeks to buttress the point that the Revenue’s “Special Leave Petitions” against the aforesaid case law are yet to be decided. We find no reason to interfere with the learned CIT(A)’s action quashing the corresponding assessments in both these assessees’ respective cases for this precise reason only. The Revenue fails in its instant identical legal ground therefore. All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic. 9. These Revenue’s seven appeals ITA Nos.1226 to 1228/Del/2026 and ITA Nos.1244 to 1247/Del/2026 are dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th May, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th May, 2026. 5 | P a g e

ITA Nos.1226 to 1228/Del/2026 & ITA Nos. 1244 to 1247/Del/2026

RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

6 | P a g e