DINESH SAHU,VEDVYAS vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

1 ITA No.178/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.178/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dinesh Sahu, M/s. Disha Trading Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur Co. , Vedvyas, Rourkela PAN/GIR No. AGCPS 1932 M (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sultania, CA Revenue by : Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty, ld CIT DR Date of Hearing : 26/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 26/05/2026

O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2, dated 7.1.2026 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10648/2018-19 for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. Shri Manoj Kumar Sultania, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that there was a search in the case of M/s. Sunayana Metal Industries Pvt ltd., (SMIL) on 3.12.2020. In the course of search, a pen drive had been found which contained certain transactions relating to the assessee. Ld AR drew our attention to the transactions which are at pages 108 to 120 of PB, which represented purchases done by the assessee to an extent of Rs.1,38,14,620/-. It was the submission that there is no search on the assessee. It was the submission that

2 ITA No.178/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20

on the basis of evidences found in the course of search on SMIL, proceedings u/s.153C came to be initiated against the assessee. Ld AR submitted that necessary satisfaction recorded by the AO is at pages 122 to 123 of PB, which reads as follows:

3 ITA No.178/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20

4 ITA No.178/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20

been written by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that the proforma for recording satisfaction u/s. 153C is dated 22.11.2021, therefore, same is liable to be upheld. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the name and designation of the Assessing Officer who has recorded the satisfaction is conspicuous by its absence. There is a marking at place in respect of signature and the date 22.11.2021 is also written. Admittedly, the details of the Officer or the Authority, who has recorded the satisfaction is not available nor discernible from the said proforma for recording of satisfaction u/s.153C of the Act. The provisions of section 153C requires that there should be satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer of the person searched and the person in respect of whom such evidence found, if the said Assessing officer is different. In the impugned case, it is informed that the Assessing Authority of the searched person being M/s. Sunayana Metal Industries Pvt ltd., and the assessee are the same Assessing Officer being ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana, 362 ITR 673 (SC) and subsequent circular issued by CBDT No.24/2015, the satisfaction can be recorded by the same Assessing Officer. Admittedly, there is a satisfaction recorded but the name and designation of the Assessing Officer who has recorded the satisfaction is clearly vague in the said satisfaction note. This being so, the said satisfaction is treated as invalid and same stands quashed. Consequently, notice issued u/s.153C and consequential assessment order stands quashed.

5 ITA No.178/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20

7 In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 26/05/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack ; Dated 26/05/2026 RS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant: Dinesh Sahu, M/s. Disha Trading Co. , Vedvyas, Rourkela