ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURGAON vs. ASHOKA TRADERS PVT. LTD., , FARIDABAD
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, holding that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note did not comply with the amended provisions of Section 153C, particularly as clarified by the Delhi High Court in PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Others. Since the Revenue failed to produce a compliant satisfaction note invoking the extended period, the Tribunal quashed the assessments for all four assessment years.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed four appeals against CIT(A) orders for AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, challenging assessments made under Section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The dispute centered on the validity of the Section 153C assessments, specifically whether these assessment years fell within the statutory period covered by the AO's satisfaction note, considering both the six-year and subsequently ten-year look-back period introduced by amendments.
What were the issues?
Whether assessments initiated under Section 153C for AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16 were valid, given the date of satisfaction and the applicability of amended provisions regarding the number of assessment years that can be covered.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- PCIT v. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd.277 citing465 ITR 101 · 2024 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
These Revenue’s instant four appeals to 2681/Del/2022, for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2015-16, arise against the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon’s common orders dated 31.08.2022 in case No. 10213, 10289, 10689 & 11074/CIT(A)- 3/GGN/2021-22 in proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).
Heard both parties at length. Case files perused.
It transpires during the course of hearing that the Revenue’s instant four appeals raise the first and foremost question of validity of the impugned section 153C assessment itself going to root of the matter. This is for the precise reason that section 153C(1) first proviso stipulates that in case of a person other than the searched person against whom the to 2681/Del/2022 2 Ashoka Traders Pvt. Ltd. relevant proceedings are to be initiated, the date of initiation of search………………..shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents………….by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction. We note in this statutory backdrop that the learned Assessing Officer had recorded his section 153C satisfaction on 07.06.2021 which ought to be taken as the date of initiation of search in very terms.
Faced with this situation, we invited learned CIT-DR’s attention to the fact that counting backward from this clinching date, the relevant six assessment years immediately preceding to the assessment year do not cover these four assessment years A.Y.’s 2012-13 to 2015-16. Mr. Akhtar at this stage quoted the statutory amendment inserted “for the relevant assessment year or years referred to sub-section (1) to section 153A(1) proviso made applicable to section 153C(1) to buttress the point that these four assessment years very well fall within “ten” assessment years and therefore, the impugned proceedings have been validity initiated against the assessee.
We have given our thoughtful consideration of the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions and find no merit therein in light of PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Others (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del.) wherein their lordships made it clear in para 119 (G) and (H) that the corresponding section 153C satisfaction note itself must take note of the relevant conditions as per the foregoing amendment made applicable by the legislature vide Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 onwards.
We wish to make it clear that neither the learned Assessing Officer’s assessment nor the departmental side during the course of hearing has been able to prove the to 2681/Del/2022 3 Ashoka Traders Pvt. Ltd. foregoing compliance for the purpose of invoking the amended provision in assessee’s case by producing the relevant satisfaction note. We thus find merit in the assessee’s instant first and foremost legal argument and quash all these four assessments in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
All other pleadings on merit in these four appeals stand rendered academic.
These Revenue’s four appeals to 2681/Del/2022 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 27/11/2024.
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 →- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026