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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8580/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 June 2026AY 2014-156 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that AY 2014-15 was outside the six assessment years permitted under Section 153C. The condition of escaped income amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs or more was also not met for the relevant period.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the CIT(A) which quashed an assessment order passed under Section 153C. The CIT(A) found that the assessment year in question (AY 2014-15) fell outside the six-year period preceding the satisfaction note.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment year 2014-15 falls within the six-year period for assessment under Section 153C. Whether the condition of escaped income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more was satisfied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA&

Hearing: 20.04.2026Pronounced: 03.06.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.8580/Del/2025 Vinod Gupta (AY: 2014-15) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8580/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

DCIT, Central Circle-28 Vs. Vinod Gupta Room No. 327, 3rd Floor, H-33, Phase-1, ARA Centre, E-2, Ashok Vihar Jhandewalan Extn, Delhi – 110052 New Delhi – 110055 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ADTPG1351Q Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Date of Hearing 20.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 03.06.2026

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order dated 19.08.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-25, Delhi (hereinafter

P a g e | 2 ITA No.8580/Del/2025 Vinod Gupta (AY: 2014-15) referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN

No : ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1079726362(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 28.03.2024 u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by DCIT, CC-28, Delhi for AY: 2014 -15.

2.

On hearing ld. DR has basically relied the ground by which department has challenged the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) wherein after taking into

consideration the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Ojjus

Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024)465 ITR 101, the ld. CIT(A) has quashed the

assessment order. On going through relevant part of the impugned order and para 15 to 19 we observe that following factual and legal aspects have been

considered:

“15. The period of six assessment years as per the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi thus means six years prior to the assessment year in which the seized material was handed over to the AO of the ’other’ (non-searched) person/satisfaction note u/s 153C was recorded by the concerned AO. As per record, the Satisfaction note was recorded by the AO on 24.06.2022, on which date the seized documents were also handed over to the AO of the other person (appellant) by the AO of the searched person/s. This date falls in the F.Y. 2022- 23 relevant to AY 2023-24. Therefore, by this yardstick, six years period as referred to in section 153C(1) of the Act would be from AY 2017-18 to 2022-23.

16.

To ascertain whether the income escaping assessment in the relevant assessment year or the aggregate of the assessment years amounted to or was likely to amount to Rs. S0 Lakhs or more, the copy of the satisfaction note drawn as seen from record was perused, as reproduced below:

P a g e | 3 ITA No.8580/Del/2025 Vinod Gupta (AY: 2014-15)

P a g e | 4 ITA No.8580/Del/2025 Vinod Gupta (AY: 2014-15)

P a g e | 5 ITA No.8580/Del/2025 Vinod Gupta (AY: 2014-15)

17.

From the above, it is seen that the aggregate of the income having escaped assessment for the relevant assessment years', ie. AY 2016-17 (FY 2015-16), AY 2015-16 (FY 2014-15) and (impugned) AY 2014-15 (FY 2013-14) as per the satisfaction note recorded falls short of Rs. 50 lakhs. 17.1 Following the ratio of decision as per the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare (supra), there is nothing in the satisfaction note to show that the income, represented in the form of asset which has escaped assessment, amounted to or was likely to amount to Rs. 50 Lakhs or more in the relevant assessment year" or in aggregate in the 'relevant assessment years" in the case of the appellant under consideration. 18. Thus, the condition spelt out in the statute and as interpreted by the Hon'ble Courts for permitting reopening beyond six years was not fulfilled in the instant case. The case of the impugned A.Y. 2014-15 falls beyond the period of six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the satisfaction note was drawn / seized documents were handed over to the appellant's AO. The period of six years that could be reopened by the AO thus terminates with the AY 2017-18. The contention of the appellant therefore bears merit. 19. Relying on the above-mentioned case laws and respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd (supra), it is seen that A.

P a g e | 6 ITA No.8580/Del/2025 Vinod Gupta (AY: 2014-15) Y. 2014-15 is not covered within six AYs as per section 153C of the Act and the condition/s for assessing it as part of the relevant assessment years was not existent. The notice issued for the instant assessment year, AY 2014-15 would thus fall beyond the ambit of six AYs' as provided under section 153C read with section 153A, and hence the impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2024 passed u/s 153C of the Act for the instant AY 2014-15 in pursuance of such notice would not survive, having no legs to stand, and is thus annulled.”

3.

In the light of aforesaid circumstances as the ld. DR was unable to cite any proposition of law or fact to counter the conclusions settled by ld. CIT(A), we find no substance in the appeal of department the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 03.06.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →