FOOTWEAR (KLICK) INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-29, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3492/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/s. Footwear (Klick) India Vs. DCIT, Private Limited, Central Circle-29, D-3, Udyog Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi Rohtak Road, West Delhi -110041 PAN: AAACF0016G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Amit Goel, CA Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Department by Sh. Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT(DR)

Date of hearing 06.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 06.08.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -30 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 25.03.2026 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/108782632(1), dated 25.03.2026 involving proceedings under section 153C/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.3492/Del/2026

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee/appellant raises his first and foremost legal ground challenging the Assessing Officer’s section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) assessment dated 30.09.2022. We make it clear that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in question on 14.10.2020 in the case of Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh and his associates. Thereafter the learned Assessing Officer appeared to have recorded his satisfaction culminating in the impugned section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) assessment herein. The assessee’s case in this factual backdrop is that the learned Assessing Officer although had recorded his section 153C satisfaction, but he never issued the corresponding notice rendering the assessment itself as a non-est one in the eyes of law. Learned CIT(DR) referred to para 7 at pages 30 & 31 that the CIT(A) has already rejected the assessee’s very stand in the impugned lower appellate discussion. He could hardly dispute that there is no clear-cut indication therein as to whether the Assessing Officer had actually issued section 153C notices to the assessee or not, as the case may be. We note in this factual backdrop that the assessee has filed a copy of the tribunal’s order in ITA No.5540/Del/2025, Mr. Ashish Gupta

2 | P a g e

ITA No.3492/Del/2026

Vs. DCIT, dated 04.02.2026, deciding the very issue against the department, as under: “2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant herein raises her first and foremost legal ground challenging validity of the impugned section 153C r.w.s 143(3) assessment dated 29th September, 2022 framed by the learned Assessing Officer as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. That being the case, we hereby note with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the assessee had filed her section 139(1) return on 29.12.2021 stating income of Rs.6,59,580/-. Learned departmental authorities in the meantime carried out section 132 search on 14.10.2020 in M/s. Manoj Kumar Singh and associates wherein they came across some incriminating material belonging/pertaining or relating to the assessee; as the case may be. The clinching fact which at this stage emerges is that although the learned departmental authorities had recorded section 153C satisfaction in the assessee’s case on 04.02.2022; neither any corresponding notice stood issued nor did she file any fresh return in pursuance thereto. It is thus an instance wherein the learned assessing authority simply issued section 143(2) notice to her on 05.02.2022 which finally culminated in the impugned section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) assessment in her case. 4. Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that the impugned assessment dated 29.09.2022 itself is not sustainable in law since not preceded by section 153C notice which has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. We thus quote 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) to quash the impugned assessment in very terms.”

3 | P a g e

ITA No.3492/Del/2026

All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th August, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24th August, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

4 | P a g e