DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. AMIT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1323/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 June 2026AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the ten-year period for Section 153C should be counted from the date of recording the satisfaction note or issuing the notice under Section 153C. Since the satisfaction note was recorded on 24.6.2022 and notice issued on 26.7.2022, the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 fell outside the ten-year block period, making the assessment orders invalid.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against ITAT orders concerning assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14, involving proceedings under Section 153C. The primary contention was that the assessment proceedings were barred by limitation, as the ten-year period for Section 153C should be counted from the date of recording the satisfaction note or issuing the notice, not from the date of search.

What were the issues?

Whether the ten-year period for initiating assessment proceedings under Section 153C is to be counted from the date of search or from the date of recording of satisfaction note/issue of notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Chinu Bhasin, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Sita Shrivastava, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 01.06.2026Pronounced: 24.06.2026

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 1322/Del/2026
ITA No. 1323/Del/2026
ITA No. 1324/Del/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Member AND Shri Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member

ITA No. 1322/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 ITA No. 1323/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ITA No. 1324/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14

DCIT, CC-28, Vs Amit Gupta, Room No. 327, 3rd floor, 43/41, West Punjabi Bagh, New ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Delhi – 110 026 New Delhi – 110 055 (PAN: AHGPG2689A)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Assessee by : Ms. Chinu Bhasin, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Sita Shrivastava, CIT(DR)

Date of Hearing: 01.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 24.06.2026

ORDER Per Sudhir Kumar, JM: These are three Revenues’ appeals filed against the respective Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, New Delhi respective orders, involving proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Since all the three revenues’ appeals involved the identical issues, hence, the same were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 1322/Del/2026 (AY 2011-12), being the lead case. 2. At the threshold, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessment proceedings u/s. 153C is barred by limitation as ten year period for Section 153C ought to be counted from the date of recording of satisfaction note/date of issue of notice u/s. 153C and not from the date of search in view of the settled position of law. 3. Ld. DR argued that SLP is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of the Hon’ble Court on this point of law, hence, the matter may be adjourned to some other date.

4.

After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, we find that in the instant case the satisfaction note was recorded by the AO of the searched person on 24.6.2022 and the notice u/s. 153C was issued on 26.7.2022, hence, the relevant year for counting ten years would be from FY 2022-23 i.e. AY 2023-24 and the 10 year would run till AY 2014-15. Thus, AY 2011-12, AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 would fall outside the 10 years block period, hence, the impugned assessment order dated 23.2.2024 passed u/s. 153C of the Act for the year in pursuance of such notice would not survive, being beyond the period of 10 years and thus the same is invalid and deserve to be quashed in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jasjit Singh (supra) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd. For the sake of brevity, we reproduce the Head Notes of the aforesaid decisions :- “CIT vs Jasjit Singh-[2023| 155 taxmann.com 155 (SC)

From Headnote

"On appeal, Tribunal held that period for which assessee were required to file returns, commenced only from date when materials were forwarded to their jurisdictional Assessing officers - High Court upheld said order"

PCIT Vs Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd- [2024] 161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi)

From Headnote

“Whether first proviso to section 153C, and which has been consistently recognized to also embody commencement point for reckoning six or ten assessment years, shifts relevant date from date of initiation of search or a requisition made to date of receipt of books of account or documents and assets seized by jurisdictional Assessing Officer of non-searched person - Held, yes"

5.

Respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, we are inclined to uphold the order of the ld. CIT (A) who has passed the well-reasoned and speaking order relying on the aforesaid decisions. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. Accordingly, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed for assessment year 2011- 12.

2 | P a g e

6.

As regards other appeals of revenue are concerned, the same are related to assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively, our decision given in assessment year 2011-12, as aforesaid will apply mutatis mutandis to these assessment years as well, being issue involved is identical in all other remaining two appeals of the Revenue also. Resultantly, the remaining 02 appeals of the Revenue also stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner. 7. To sum up, these Revenues’ three appeals stand dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 24/06/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Naveen Chandra) (Sudhir Kumar) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 24/06/2026 *SR BHATNAGGAR* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →