RAJ KUMAR,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1503/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 September 2026AY 2021-224 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal quashed the assessment order as being without jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted the assessee's argument that the satisfaction for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was recorded on 11.05.2022, which falls within AY 2023-24. As per the first proviso to Section 153C(1), the date of search is considered the date of satisfaction. Consequently, the relevant block period for initiating proceedings under Section 153C would include AY 2017-18 to 2022-23. Since AY 2021-22 falls within this period, the assessment should have been made under Section 153C. The Tribunal found that the assessment was made under Section 143(3), which it deemed to be without jurisdiction. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Jasjit Singh and a Co-ordinate Bench decision in Asha Gupta Vs. DCIT, where similar facts led to the quashing of reassessment proceedings, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Raj Kumar, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order dated 13/12/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-30, Delhi. This order confirmed the Assessment Order dated 28/12/2022 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-22. The case originated from a search and seizure operation under Section 132 on 26.10.2020 in the case of Sanjay Jain and Mehta Group, where documents belonging to the assessee were seized. The assessee's case was centralized with Central Circle-30, New Delhi, on 13.12.2022. Notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued, leading to additions against the assessee, which were upheld by the first appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) for Assessment Year 2021-22 is without jurisdiction, considering the date of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) of the assessee and the provisions of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the satisfaction was recorded by the AO on 11.05.2022, which falls in the Financial Year 2022-23, relevant to Assessment Year 2023-24. According to the first proviso to Section 153C(1), the date of search is deemed to be the date of satisfaction recorded by the AO of the assessee. Therefore, the search year is AY 2023-24, and the preceding six years for which proceedings under Section 153C could be initiated are AY 2017-18 to 2022-23. Since AY 2021-22 falls within this block period, any order should have been passed under Section 153C, not Section 143(3). The assessment is thus without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Jasjit Singh (2023) and a Co-ordinate Bench decision in Asha Gupta Vs. DCIT. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 250,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

Before: MS MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAYShri Rajesh Mahajan, CIT (DR)

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 25/06/2026Pronounced: 21/09/2026

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 1503/Del/2025 (A.Y 2021-22) Raj Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner Q 9 2nd Floor, Rajouri of Income Tax, Garden, New Delhi, Circle-30 Subhash Nagar, J-6, Delhi Rajouri Garden, West Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAAPK5388B Assessee by : Sh. Pranav Yadv, Adv Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, CIT (DR)

Date of Hearing 25/06/2026 Date of pronouncement 21/09/2026 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the

order dated 13/12/2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-

tax (Appeals)-30, Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act,

1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the

Assessment Order dated 28/12/2022 passed by the Assessment

Unit, Income-tax Department under Section 143(3) of the Act for

Assessment Year 2021-22.

2.

A search and seizure operation was conducted under Section

132 of the Act on 26.10.2020 in the case of Sanjay Jain and Mehta

Group at various residential and business premises and certain

documents were seized from the searched person belong to the

Assessee. The satisfaction was recorded by the Ld. AO of the Page | 1

2 ITA No. 1503/Del/2025 Raj Kumar Vs. DCIT searchedperson examining the contents of the seized documents and

the case was centralized with Central Circle-30, New Delhi on

13.12.2022 by an order passed by the Ld. PCIT, Delhi-12, New

Delhi. Thereafter, notice under Section 143(2) dated 29.06.2022

followed by notice under Section 142(1) along with questionnaire

were issued to the Assessee. The reassessment proceeding was

culminated into the order of addition against the assessee which was

further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the

instant appeal before us.

3.

It is the case of the Assessee that the satisfaction was

recorded by the Ld. AO of the Assessee on 11.05.2022 which is

falling in the F.Y 2022-23 relevant to A.Y 2023-24.As per first

proviso to Section 153C (1) the date of search would be the date of

satisfaction recorded by the Ld. AO of the Assessee upon receiving

the books of account or other documents or assets seized or

requestioned from the Ld. AO of the persons searched. In this case,

the Ld. AO of the assessee recorded satisfaction on 11.05.2022 and

thus, will fall under A.Y 2023-24.

4.

As the date of search is as per Section 153C(1) of the Actis

11.05.2022 and accordingly the search year was A.Y 2023-24

relevant to previous year 2022-23 and six preceding years for which

the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act could be initiated

3 ITA No. 1503/Del/2025 Raj Kumar Vs. DCIT were A.Y 2017-18 to 2022-23. Thus, the assessment year in appeal

for A.Y 2021-22 is falling in the block period and therefore, any order

could passed only was under Section 153C of the Act and not under

Section 143(3) as has been done in the case in hand. In that view of

the matter, the assessment for the year under consideration is

without jurisdiction and thus, liable to be quashed.

5.

The Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities

below.

6.

In this regard, we have considered the Judgment relied upon

by the Ld. AR passed in the matter of Jasjit Singh by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, reported in 2023 (10) TMI 572 and the Judgment

passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Asha Gupta Vs.

DCIT, Central Circle 30, Delhi dated 6th February, 2026 wherein

under the identical facts and circumstances of the matter, the

reassessment proceeding was found to be bad law and, therefore,

quashed and respectfully relying upon the same we, thus, quash the

assessment order as without jurisdiction.

7.

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21/09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 21/09/2026 Page | 3

4 ITA No. 1503/Del/2025 Raj Kumar Vs. DCIT R. Naheed, Sr PS Copy forwarded to

1.

Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →