ABHEESHT GOEL,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.4762/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Abheest Goel Vs. DCIT H-8, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Circle-28 Delhi-110052 Delhi PAN No.ARIPG0312Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. Pranshu Singhal, CA Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT DR

Date of hearing: 23/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 07/10/2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-25, Delhi for the 2014-15. Grounds of appeal are as under :-

1 | P a g e

prescribed under the law and as such the same is bad in the eyes of the law and liable to be quashed. 4. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order passed u/s 153C of the Act, without any incriminating material having been found during the course of search in relation to additions so made. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the proceedings initiated under Section 153C and the assessment framed under Section 153C which is bad and liable to be quashed in the absence of a proper satisfaction being recorded by the AO of the searched person that the incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the course of the search. 5. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 71,12,083 u/s 69A of the Act by alleging bogus share trading undertaken by the assessee through M/s Alankit Assignments Ltd during the year under consideration. (ii) That the aforesaid addition has been confirmed urbitrarily rejecting the explanation and evidences brought on record by the appellant. 6. (1) On the 5 facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,91,164 under section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure on account of commission at the rate of 5.5 percent alleged to have been paid by the assessee on the alleged bogus share trading undertaken by the assessee, (ii) That the aforesaid addition has been

3 | P a g e

confirmed arbitrarily rejecting the explanation and evidences brought on record by the appellant. Rs. 0 7. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 60,00,000 u/s 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan received from M/s Newwave Commercial Private Limited which was squared off during the year itself by treating the same to be unexplained credits. (ii) That the aforesaid addition has been confirmed arbitrarily rejecting the explanation and evidences 6 brought on record by the appellant. 8. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,80,000 under section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure on account of commission at the rate of 3 percent alleged to have been paid by the assessee on the alleged unaccounted transaction. (ii) That the aforesaid addition has been confirmed arbitrarily rejecting the explanation and evidences brought on record by the appellant. Rs. 0 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 35,000 u/s 69C of the Act by alleging the cash paid by the assessee on the unsecured loan taken by treating it to be unexplained expenditure. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.35,000/- u/s.69A of the Act by alleging the interest received on unsecured loan by the assessee by treating it to be unexplained income of the assessee. 2. During proceedings before us the ld. Counsel argued first and primarily on the jurisdictional issue. He argued that in this case a search and seizure operation u/s.132 of the Act on 18.10.2019 was 4 | P a g e

conducted on M/s. Alankit Group of cases. In this case the assessee was alleged to have received accommodation entries from M/s. Alankit Group. Accordingly, a notice u/s.153C of the Act was issued on 15.11.2022 asking assessee to file return of income. The assessee filed return of income on 30.11.2023. Further a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was also issued alongwith questionnaire and the assessment was completed on 07.03.2024 u/s.153C of the Act. The ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that as per amended provision of the IT Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021 search related cases are to be done u/s.148 of the Act in terms of sub section 3 of section 153C will not apply for any search which is initiated on or after 01.04.2021. In this case the date of satisfaction for the assessee is 20.06.2022. It was recorded by the AO of the searched person, therefore, assessment should have been completed u/s.147 and notice u/s.148 of the Act should have been issued after taking approval from the competent authority. 3. Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have considered the findings given by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) in their orders and we have also considered the written submission filed and the arguments of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. In our considered view if a search is conducted after 01.04.2021 or a satisfaction is recorded after 01.04.2021 in such cases notice is to be issued u/s. 148 of the Act after taking approval of the competent authority and assessment is to be completed u/s.147 of the Act. Since in this case the notices and assessment have been completed u/s.153C of the Act, therefore, the assessment

5 | P a g e

order deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, assessee’s appeal on this jurisdictional ground is allowed. 5. Since we have given our finding on jurisdictional issue we are not inclined to give our finding on other grounds of appeal on merit. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 07.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

[MADHUMITA ROY] [KRINWANT SAHAY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 07.10.2026 Neha, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT SHASHI Digitally signed by SHASHI KANT 4. CIT(A) KANT PANDEY Date: 2026.10.09 PANDEY 5. DR 12:11:33 +05'30' Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

6 | P a g e