HARI OM PRAKASH GUPTA HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 28, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7786/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hari Om Prakash Gupta, Vs. DCIT, HUF, Central Circle-28, BT-36, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAAHH1091N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Sh. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Rustagi, Adv. Department by Ms. Amisha S Gupt, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 28.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 28.04.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025- 26/1080630320(1), dated 11.09.2025 involving proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.7786/Del/2025

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 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 11.02.2024 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 section 153C satisfaction that the corresponding materials/documents found/seized during the course of search in fact belonged to 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 without even making explicitly clear that the aforesaid seized materials or valuables or assets had a “bearing” in the assessee’s case. 4. Faced with this situation, learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues that we need not adopt such a hyper technical approach once the

2 | P a g e

ITA No.7786/Del/2025

Assessing Officer’s aforesaid satisfaction had been duly recorded in tune with the procedure prescribed in the statute itself. 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 materials/documents 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 the impugned assessment framed in assessee’s case in very terms. All other pleadings/arguments between the parties stand rendered academic. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th April, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 15th May, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 3 | P a g e

ITA No.7786/Del/2025

4 | P a g e