SARVO TECHNOLOGIES LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that a consolidated satisfaction note recorded for multiple assessment years is bad in law and void ab initio, leading to a fundamentally flawed assumption of jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment framed based on such a note is also invalid.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2019-20. The core issue revolves around the validity of a consolidated satisfaction note recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings u/s 153C, which was then used to frame assessment orders u/s 153C/143(3). The assessee contended that this consolidated satisfaction note was bad in law as it lacked application of mind and was not year-wise.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether a consolidated satisfaction note recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for multiple assessment years, is valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.2,664 citing88 ITR 192 · 1973 · SC
- DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma269 citing469 ITR 197 · 2024 · HC
- Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer196 citing464 ITR 1 · 2024 · HC
- Indian National Congress v. DCIT167 citing463 ITR 431 · 2024 · HC
- DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma99 citing469 ITR 271 · 2024 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘G’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC dated 24.01.2025 for the A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : A) That Ld CIT-A vide impugned order passed us 250 dated 24.01.2025erred in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed u/s 153C/143(3) dated 13.02.2024 which is founded on unlawful, invalid and illegal impugned reopening action u/s 153C of 1961 Act (vide juri ictional notice dated 24.04.2023)
B) That Ld CIT-A vide impugned order passed us 250 dated 24.01.2025erred in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed u/s 153C/143(3) dated 13.02.2024 which is founded on invalid satisfaction note recorded
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.
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
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ajay Singh, Kota vs DCIT, Central Circle, KotaITA 495/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026