DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. AMAN AGARWAL, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 355/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 January 2026AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)1 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the date of recording satisfaction for a third party is considered the date of search for that party. The current assessment year, which fell within the block period of 6 years (2017-18 to 2022-23), should have been assessed under section 153C. Similar to the case of the assessee's brother, the Coordinate Bench dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who held that the assessment year under consideration fell within the block period of 6 Assessment Years and should have been concluded under section 153C, not 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on decisions from the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment should have been made under section 153C of the Income Tax Act instead of section 143(3) when the assessment year falls within a block period determined by a third-party search.

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 S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT, DR
Hearing: 12.11.2025Pronounced: 14.01.2026

This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 25.10.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN No :

P a g e | Aman Agarwal (AY: 2021-22) ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1069944893(1)arising out of the order dated 30.12.2022 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the DCIT, Central Circle-31for AY: 2021-22.

2.

On hearing both the sides we find that the assesse succeeded before the Ld. First Appellate Authority on the basis that the year under consideration was found to be falling in the block period of 6 Assessment Years for which assessment should have been concluded u/s 153C of the Act and not u/s 143(3) of the Act and ld. CIT(A) has taken into consideration the judicial decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jasjit Singh (2023) 458 ITR 437 (SC) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 161 taxman.com 160 (Delhi).

4.

Though, the ld. DR has vehemently defended the issue, however, the legal position that date of recording satisfaction note in the case of third party is considered as date of search in the case of the third party and which forms basis of ascertaining relevant block of search assessment years could not be disputed by any law to the contrary. In the case of present assessee the date of recording satisfaction, as third party, was 02.08.2022 meaning thereby the P a g e | Aman Agarwal (AY: 2021-22) current AY: 2023-24 for which assessment has been made u/s 143(3) falls in block of 6 years starting from 2017-18 to AY: 2022-23. In fact, in the case of Aditya Agarwal in which is the case of the brother of the assesse, the Coordinate Bench by order dated 13.05.2023 dismissed the appeal of revenue.

5.

Thus, grounds raised by the revenue in the present appeal too have no substance and appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14.01.2026

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →