PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 3 vs. M/S. GRACIOUS PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 527 / 2022HC Delhi13 December 20222 pages
For Petitioner: ZOHEB HOSSAIN
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the prerequisite for acquiring jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act was not met. The revenue argued that the assessing officer of the searched person and the other person were the same individual.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled against the revenue, stating that the assessing officer of the searched person did not record the required satisfaction. The satisfaction note was recorded by the assessing officer of the other person, who was the assessee (respondent).

What were the issues?

Whether the satisfaction note recorded by the assessing officer of the other person, when it's the same individual as the assessing officer of the searched person, satisfies the requirement for jurisdiction under Section 153C.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 527/2022 & CM APPL. 53807/2022

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 3

..... Appellant Through: Mr Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Vipul Agrawal and Mr Parth Semwal, Advs.

versus

M/S. GRACIOUS PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R %

13.12.2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM APPL. 53807/2022[Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 154 days in re-filing the appeal] 1. Issue notice to the respondent via all modes including email. ITA 527/2022 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”] via the order dated 11.12.2019, has ruled against the appellant/revenue on the ground that the “satisfaction”, as required in law, was not arrived at by the assessing officer of the searched person. 3. The record discloses that the satisfaction note was recorded by the assessing officer of the other person, and not the searched person; the other person being assessee i.e., in this case, the respondent. ITA 527/2022

page 1 of 2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:24:43

4.

In sum, according to the Tribunal, the trigger point for acquiring jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] was not available. 5. Mr Zoheb Hossain, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, on the other hand, says that in this particular case, the assessing officer of the searched person and other person is the same individual, and therefore, the Tribunal’s view is erroneous. 5.1 In support of this submission, Mr Hossain relies upon the following judgments: (i) The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-3 Vs. Sheetal International Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 375/2017; (ii) Ganpati Fincap Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. CIT [2017] 395 1TR 692 ( Delhi ); (iii) Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, (2020) SCC OnLine SC 306.

6.

This aspect of the matter will be examined on the next date of hearing. 7. List the matter on 11.05.2023.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

DECEMBER 13, 2022/SA

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 527/2022

page 2 of 2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:24:43

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →