AMAN AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC 28, DELHI

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-25), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 10.09.2025 arising out the assessment order 25-3-2023 u/s 153(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14.

grounds of appeal under Rule 11 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The contents of the said application are reproduced as under:- The appellant begs to move the following grounds as additional grounds:- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the AO in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 153C and passing the impugned assessment order is bad in law, as the said assessment order has been passed without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without recording mandatory satisfaction in accordance with law and without complying with the mandatory conditions / procedure as laid down u/s. 153C in accordance with law. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the action of the AO in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 153C and passing the impugned assessment order is invalid, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the AO in passing the impugned assessment order is bad in law inter alia also for the reason that the impugned assessment year i.e. AY 2013-14 is out of block period in view of the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction note reorded u/s. 153C is mechanical and bad in law as the same has been recorded in a composite / consolidated manner for various assessment years which is contrary to the settled position of law as held in judgements of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma, (2024) 469 ITR 271 (SC), DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma, (2024) 469 ITR 197 (Kar) and other host of decisions. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction note u/s. 153C does not mention any seized documents or any incriminating material based on which impugned additions / disallowances have been made and thus the impugned assessment order passed by the AO is invalid, illegal, bad in law and void ab inito. 2

5.1 A bare perusal of the aforesaid table, it is abundantly clear that the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14 fall beyond the ten years block period as set out under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the impugned notices shall render unsustainable. This view is supported by the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare (supra), the headnote reads as under:

“Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment of any or person (Block assessment) - Assessment years 2010- 11 to 2013-14 - 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 Whether furthermore where date of handing over of documents was not available, date of issuance of satisfaction Note by Assessing Officer under section 153C would be pertinent for purpose of First Proviso to section 153C - Held, yes - Whether significant difference between computation of relevant assessment year for identification of six assessment years and to construct a block of ten assessment years is that while six assessment years’ hinge upon phrase “immediately preceding” assessment year pertaining to search year, ten assessment years’ are liable to be computed or reckoned from end of assessment year relevant to year of search - Held, yes - Whether thus, in instant case where satisfaction note were issued between 1-4-2021 and 31- 3-2022, relevant assessment year would be 2022-23 and assessment years’ 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 would clearly fall outside block period of ten assessment years as provided under section 153C read with section 153A - Held, yes [Paras 85, 86, 96 and 97] [In favour of assessee].” 6. Thus, in facts of the case and the decision discussed above, we find merit in the legal issue raised by the assessee in additional ground no. 3 of appeal, because the instant assessment year 2013-14 is barred by limitation and outside the scope of Section 153C of the Act, therefore, makes the entire proceedings void-ab-inito and unlawful. Thus, the assessment order held to be beyond limitation, hence, quashed and accordingly, the additional legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

SR Bhatnagar Date: 20.05.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI