DILIP CHADHA,PAHARGANJ, NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5351/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 January 2026AY 2020-2021Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (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 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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Ms. Sejal Arora, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 21.01.2026Pronounced: 21.01.2026

Date of hearing 21.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 21.01.2026 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →