DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. FAIR DEAL IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 6472/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2026AY 2014-158 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed all ten appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the mere pendency of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court against the decision in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. is not a ground to adopt a different approach when a binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court exists. The Tribunal upheld the learned CIT(A)'s decision to quash the Section 153C assessments. The reasoning was based on recent judicial precedents, including CIT-7 vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. and PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd., which established that the relevant date for calculating the block period under Section 153C(1), read with the first proviso, is the date of receiving the concerned seized material by the assessees' jurisdictional Assessing Officers. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention that the block period should be calculated from the date of the search, as the CIT(A) had correctly determined that none of the assessment years involved fell within the specified period based on the date of receipt of seized material. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic.

What were the facts?

This judgment consolidates ten appeals filed by the Revenue (DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi) against orders passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for five different assessees: M/s. Aman Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Avisha Credit Capital Ltd., M/s. Fair Deal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Sh. Anuj Sharma, and Smt. Namita Garg. The assessment years involved range from 2010-11 to 2014-15. All appeals arise from proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search action dated 18.10.2019 in the 'Alankit Group of cases'. The Revenue's appeals challenge the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the Section 153C assessments, primarily concerning the calculation of the block period for assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., even though the Revenue had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against that decision? The Revenue argued that the pendency of the SLP should not preclude them from arguing their case. The assessee's position is not explicitly recorded on this point, but the CIT(A) relied on the Ojjus Medicare judgment. 2. Whether, on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the 10-year block period for assessment under Section 153C of the Act should be calculated from the date of the satisfaction note or the date of issue of the notice under Section 153C, and not from the date of the search, despite Section 153C(1) mentioning the year of search? The Revenue contended that the block period should be calculated from the year of search. The CIT(A) held that the period should be calculated from the date of the satisfaction note or notice, relying on judicial precedents. The Revenue also argued that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2017, clarifies that the block period for Section 153A and 153C should be calculated from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिल्ली पीठें, नई धिल्ली INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI BENCH: G BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 1463 & 1464/DEL/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, M/S. AMAN BUILDWELL PVT NEW DELHI LTD ROOM NO. 327 3RD FLOOR ARA BA-17A, DDA FLATS, ASHOK CENTRE E-2 JHANDEWALAN Vs. VIHAR, PHASE-I, DELHI- EXTN, NEW DELHI-110055, 110052 DELHI NEW DELHI-110052, DELHI अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

PAN of Assessee: AAGCA1024M

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented by: Ms. Kranti, CIT(DR) प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented by: Sh. Suresh K. Gupta, CA WITH ITA 6434, 6435 & 6436/DEL/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, M/S. AVISHA CREDIT NEW DELHI CAPITAL LTD. ROOM NO. 327 3RD FLOOR ARA 606, KAILASH BUILDING, CENTRE E-2 JHANDEWALAN Vs. KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, EXTN, NEW DELHI-110055, NEW DELHI-110001, DELHI NEW DELHI अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

PAN of Assessee: AAACA5715D

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented by: Ms. Kranti, CIT(DR) प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represen

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →