Loading judgment…
Facts
A search was conducted on M/s. Alankit group of cases on 18.10.2019. The Assessing Officer of the searched party recorded a section 153C satisfaction on 15.06.2022, stating that seized assets belonged to the assessee. This satisfaction was forwarded to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer who recorded his own satisfaction on 22.08.2022.
Held
The tribunal held that the Revenue's arguments did not impress them. They noted that the assessee's Assessing Officer had not recorded any satisfaction that the seized valuables/assets had a "bearing" on the determination of the assessee's total income. The tribunal relied on the case law Saksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO.
Key Issues
Legality of the section 153C assessment framed by the AO due to the lack of clear satisfaction regarding the bearing of seized assets on the assessee's total income.
Sections Cited
153C, 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 21.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 21.01.2026 ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025- 26/1079517972(1), dated 12.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
We notice at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue on legality of the impugned section 153C assessment framed by the learned Assessing Officer on 31st March, 2024 in the assessee’s case. A few relevant facts may be noticed.
There is no dispute between the parties that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in question on 18.10.2019 in M/s. Alankit group of cases. The learned Assessing Officer of the said searched party thereafter recorded his section 153C satisfaction on 15.06.2022 (page 61) in the paper-book that the corresponding valuable assets found/seized during the course of search in fact belonged to the assessee i.e. a third person. He forwarded the relevant case records to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer who recorded his latter satisfaction under section 153C on 22.08.2022 without even making explicitly clear that the aforesaid seized materials or valuables or assets had a bearing in the assessee’s case (page 62 to 63 in the paper-book).
3. Faced with this situation, learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues that we need not adopt such a hyper technical approach once the 2 | P a g e Assessing Officer’s aforesaid satisfaction had been duly recorded in tune with the procedure prescribed in the statute itself.
All these Revenue’s arguments fail to impress upon us. We make it clear at the cost of repetition that the assessee’s Assessing Officer had nowhere recorded a satisfaction that the valuables/assets in question found/seized during the course of search had any “bearing” on determination of the assessee’s total income. Case law Saksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1 (Delhi)(HC) has already settled the very issue in the asseessee’s favour and against the department to the very effect. We thus quash the impugned assessment framed in assessee’s case in very terms. All other pleadings/arguments between the parties stand rendered academic.