JOGINDER PAYLA,HARYANA vs. DCIT, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2820/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 January 2026AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's decision to make additions on a protective basis was dependent on substantive additions made in another case. The Tribunal also observed that for AY 2020-21, the assessment should have been under Section 153C. It was held that sustaining protective additions without substantive additions lacks legal sanctity.

What were the facts?

The appeals were preferred by the Assessees against orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concerning assessment years ranging from 2012-13 to 2020-21. The Assessing Officer passed orders under Section 143(3)/153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the protective additions made by the Assessing Officer are sustainable without substantive additions and whether the assessment for AY 2020-21 was correctly made under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Ghai, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. PoojaSwaroop, CIT, DR
Hearing: 13.01.2026Pronounced: 23.01.2026

ITA No. & Ld. FAA who Appeal No. & Date of order AO who passed the AY passed the appellate of the Ld. FAA assessment order

P a g e | 3 16 Appeals JoginderPayla order &Date of order 2741/D/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : DCIT, CC-27, New 2013-14 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- Delhi, dated 25/1073208869(1) Dated 30.03.2023 12.02.2025 2742/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : DCIT, CC-27, New 2014-15 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- Delhi, dated 25/1073209135(1) 30.03.2023 12.02.2025 2743/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : DCIT, CC-27, New 2015-16 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- Delhi, dated 25/1073209552(1) 30.03.2023 12.02.2025 2744/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : DCIT, CC-27, New 2016-17 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- Delhi, dated 25/1073209869(1) 30.03.2023 12.02.2025 2745/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : DCIT, CC-27, New 2017-18 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- Delhi, dated 25/1073210072(1) 30.03.2023 12.02.2025 2746/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : DCIT, CC-27, New 2018-19 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- Delhi, dated 30.03.2023 25/1073210367(1) 12.02.2025 2819/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : DCIT, CC-27, New 2019-20 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- Delhi, dated 25/1073210585(1) 30.03.2023 12.02.2025 2820/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : DCIT, CC-27, New 2020-21 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- Delhi, dated 25/1073210750(1) 30.03.2023 12.02.2025 3157/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : ACIT, CC-27, New 2014-15 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- Delhi, dated 25/1074711052(1) 30.03.2023 19.03.2025 3158/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : ACIT, CC-27, New 2015-16 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- Delhi, dated 25/1074712378(1) 30.03.2023 19.03.2025 3159/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : ACIT, CC-27, New 2016-17 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- Delhi, dated 25/1074711875(1) 30.03.2023 19.03.2025

P a g e | 4 16 Appeals JoginderPayla 3160/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : ACIT, CC-27, New 2017-18 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- Delhi, dated 25/1074713073(1) 30.03.2023 19.03.2025 3161/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : ACIT, CC-27, New 2018-19 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- Delhi, dated 25/1074714873(1) 30.03.2023 19.03.2025 3162/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : ACIT, CC-27, New 2020-21 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- Delhi, dated 25/1074713963(1) 30.03.2023 19.03.2025 4685/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : DCIT, CC-27, New 2012-13 ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- Delhi, dated 26/1076592531(1) 30.03.2023 30.05.2025 4686/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : DCIT, CC-27, New 2013-14 ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- Delhi, dated 26/1076592156(1) 30.03.2023 30.05.2025 4687/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : ACIT, CC-27, New 2014-15 ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- Delhi, dated 26/1076592215(1) 30.03.2023 30.05.2025 4688/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : ACIT, CC-27, New 2015-16 ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- Delhi, dated 26/1076592299(1) 30.03.2023 30.05.2025 4689/Del/25 CIT(A)-31, Delhi DIN & Order No : ACIT, CC-27, New 2016-17 ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- Delhi, dated 26/1076592396(1) 30.03.2023 30.05.2025

2.

At the time of hearing ld. DR has sought adjournment on the basis that additions in the hands of these assessees have been made on protective basis while additions on substantive basis have been made in the hands of Robert Wadhera and in fact, the appeals of the Robert Wadhera are still pending

P a g e | 5 16 Appeals JoginderPayla before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, therefore, till the disposal of that appeal the present appeals be kept pending.

3.

Ld. Counsels appearing for the assessee, however, submitted that in any case the years involved are unabated years and neither in the satisfaction note recorded to take cognizance u/s 153C of the Act or in the impugned orders there is any reference of any incriminating material found and relied. Reliance was heavily placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Saksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1 (Delhi). It was also pointed out that in regard to AY: 2020-21 in fact the assessment should have been u/s 153C as a search year has to be determined on the basis of date of recording of satisfaction note. Therefore, assessment concluded u/s 143(3) for AY: 2020-21 are not sustainable in the light of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Delhi).

4.

We are of the considered view that where ld. First Appellate Authority was yet to make final conclusion with regard to substantive additions sustaining protective additions lacks legal sanctity as protective additions

P a g e | 6 16 Appeals JoginderPayla independently have no legal substratum to sustain and same has caused prejudice to the cause of justice for both the assessee and Revenue.

5.

Therefore, the factual legal aspect as raised before us with regard to absence of incriminating materials being referred in the satisfaction note or the assessment orders and that in regard to AY: 2020-21 assessment should have been u/s 153C of the Act require indulgence of the Ld. First Appellate Authority independently too.

6.

Thus, we allow the appeals for statistical purposes and restore the issues involved in appeals to ld. CIT(A) to give assessee fresh opportunity of hearing on aforesaid question of facts and law and to give conclusive findings on the same, only consequent to determination of issues in hand of assesse, where substantive additions have been made.

7.

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.01.2026

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →