YASH SUNEJA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 25, DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6579/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2026AY 2017-189 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 satisfaction note recorded by the AO was invalid as it did not clearly indicate that the seized material belonged to the assessee or had a bearing on the determination of their total income. This was in line with previous jurisdictional High Court decisions.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order passed under Section 153C. The Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted a search in a group case, and the satisfaction note for the assessee's case did not explicitly state that the seized documents pertained to the assessee or had a bearing on their total income.

What were the issues?

Whether the satisfaction note recorded by the AO under Section 153C was valid when it failed to establish that the seized documents pertained to the assessee and had a bearing on their total income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHIBENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Hearing: 17.02.2026Pronounced: 15.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 6579/Del/2025 :Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Yash Suneja, Vs ACIT, 94, Pitampura, Deepali Enclave, Central Circle-25, New Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAYPS2421D Assessee by: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA Revenue by: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanestha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 17.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 15.05.2026 ORDER Per Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.08.2025passed by CIT(A)-29, New Delhi in case No. CIT(A), Delhi-29/10707/2016-17 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 28.03.2023 passed u/s 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

Heard the parties at length and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the satisfaction note of the AO of the person searched and AO of the assessee who incidentally are the same, it is observed that nowhere in the satisfaction note the AO has recorded that the documents in the shape of digital evidences were pertain to assessee and had

2 ITA No. 6579/Del/2025 Yash Suneja a “bearing” on determination of total income of the assessee. The relevant pages of paper book containing satisfaction pages 61 to 68 are reproduced herein below:

3 ITA No. 6579/Del/2025 Yash Suneja

4 ITA No. 6579/Del/2025 Yash Suneja

5 ITA No. 6579/Del/2025 Yash Suneja

6 ITA No. 6579/Del/2025 Yash Suneja

7 ITA No. 6579/Del/2025 Yash Suneja

8 ITA No. 6579/Del/2025 Yash Suneja

3.

There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in issue dated 06.02.2019 in Sh. Sanjay Jain Group of cases. That being the case, learned counsel has invited our attention to the Assessing Officer’s section 153C satisfaction recorded on 06.09.2022 in the assessee’s case nowhere indicating as to whether the corresponding seized material belonged or pertained or related to the assessee; or it had a “bearing” on determination of the total income forming a condition precedent going by PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.&(2024) 465 ITR 101 (Delhi),PCIT vs. Jasjit Singh (2024) 336 CTR 634 (Delhi), CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 0612 and Saksham Commodities Ltd. vs. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1.

9 ITA No. 6579/Del/2025 Yash Suneja 4. Faced with this situation, learned CIT-DR vehemently argues that the impugned satisfaction note has rightly been recorded strictly in tune with section 153C of the Act wherein it is nowhere mandatory to incorporate the clinching statutory expression “bearing” therein.

5.

We are afraid that the Revenue’s vehement contentions hardly deserves to be accepted since going against hon’ble jurisdictional aforesaid landmark decisions already settling the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department. We thus conclude in this factual backdrop that both the impugned section 153C satisfactions as well as assessment before us forming subject matter of adjudication herein are non-est in very terms. Quashed accordingly.

6.

All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 15/05/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Raj Kumar Chauhan) (Manish Agarwal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 15/05/2026 *Subodh Kumar, 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 →