PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment was not sustainable because the Assessing Officer failed to record the requisite satisfaction as mandated by Section 153C of the Act. This failure rendered the assessment invalid.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals arise from assessments made under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search in the Alankit Group of companies. The assessee challenged the validity of these assessments.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of the assessments made under Section 153C due to the alleged lack of proper satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer regarding the seized documents' bearing on the assessee's taxable income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “E” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 7733 to 7739/Del/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2020-21 Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Pradeep Kumar Gupta BT-37, Shalimar Bagh, Income Tax Delhi- 110088 Central Circle-25 NCC DIT(S), Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi- 55 PAN: AAIPG1277D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Sh. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Department by Ms. Amisha S Gupt, CIT DR Date of hearing 18.05.2026 Date of pronouncement 18.05.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos. 7733 to 7739/Del/2025, arise against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-25 [in short, “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s as many DINs & Order Nos. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025- 26/1082143323(1), ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1082143919(1), ITBA/ APL/ M/ 250/2025-26/1082144197(1), ITBA/ APL/ M/ 250/ 2025-26/ 1082144763(1), ITBA/ APL/ M/ 250/ 2025-26/ 1082146498(1), ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1082146609(1), ITBA/ APL/ M/ 250/ 2025-26/ 1082146725(1) all dated
ITA No. 7733 to 7739/Del/2025 30.10.2025, involving proceedings u/s 153A r.w.s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
It transpires during the course of haring that the assessee raises his first and foremost legal ground challenging validity of the impugned section 153C assessments all dated 12.03.2024 itself. We make it clear that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in question in M/s Alankit Group of companies on 18.10.2019. And that the learned Assessing Officer of the said searched assessee recorded his satisfaction on 23.06.2022; which, in turn, was forwarded to the assessee’s Assessing Officer followed by his latter round of satisfaction recorded on 04.11.2022(pages 318 to 319 in the paperbook).
The assessee’s vehement contention in this factual backdrop is that its learned Assessing Officer has failed to record any categoric satisfaction that the alleged seized documents forming basis to proceed in its case had a “bearing” on determination of its taxable income which forms a mandatory provision as per Saksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1 (Delhi)(HC).
2 | P a g e
ITA No. 7733 to 7739/Del/2025 4. The Revenue’s vehemently supports the impugned satisfaction note that such an expression need not be explicitly incorporated therein as we ought to appreciate the relevant facts in totality of circumstances. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee and the Revenue’s vehement submissions. We are of the considered view that once the learned Assessing Officer has failed to record his section 153C satisfaction in the assessee’s case as per provisions of the Act, the assessment herein is not sustainable as per their lordships aforesaid landmark decision. Quashed accordingly in very terms.
All other pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.
These assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos. 7733 to 7739/Del/2025 are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.05.2026 . Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20.05.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
3 | P a g e
More judgments on Section 153A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Ig3 Infra Limited, KanchipuramITA 2578/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Ig3 Infra Limited, OggiamthoraipakkaITA 2577/CHNY/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Shanmugham Thiagarajan, ChennaiITA 2576/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026