THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. BJN HOLDINGS LTD.

Supreme Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Limited: (2024) 2 SCC 433, whereby the Court upheld the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla: 380 ITR 573 that in the absence of any incriminating material, the Assessing Officer [AO] cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act. 5. We note that the said issue was recorded by this Court in the order passed on 13.05.2025, which reads as under: “1. The Revenue has filed the present appeals impugning a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA Nos.42/Del/2022 to 46/Del/2022 in respect of Assessment Years [AYs] 2006-07 to 2010-11. The said appeals were preferred by the Revenue against the orders dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [CIT(A)]. In terms of the said orders, the respective assessment orders which were subject matter of challenge before the CIT(A) were set aside following the decision of this court in PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.: Neutral Citation No.: 2015:DHC:10110-DB and Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax: (2012) 247 CTR 500 on the ground that the assessments had been framed on a person that did not exist is illegal and an order passed pursuant to is nullity. The learned ITAT found no reason to differ from the decision of the CIT(A). 2. It is in the aforesaid context that the Revenue contends that the CIT(A) and learned ITAT were not justified in passing the order and not appreciating that the assessment had been framed on the Assessee through its successor-in-interest M/s BJN Holding Ltd. 3. Mr Vohra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Assessee on advance notice, submits that the entire issue has been rendered academic in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Assessee’s case rendered on 25.04.2023. He submits that the assessments in the present case were This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/05/2025 at 11:52:20

framed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] read with Section 143(3) of the Act. It is the Assessee’s case that there was no incriminating material that would warrant exercise of jurisdiction under 153C of the Act. 4. In the aforesaid context, the Assessee had filed a writ petition before this court being WP(C) 1708/2014 challenging the validity of Section 153C of the Act. The same was disposed of by a judgment dated 02.05.2018 rendered by this court in a batch of matters where similar challenge had been raised by the Assessees in the context of the search conducted in Dhingra Group of cases. This court had rejected the said contention by referring to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla: 380 ITR 573 as well as the certain other decisions where exercise of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act was held to be circumscribed to the extent that the same could be invoked only on the basis of incriminating material found during the search. These decisions, according to this court, had rendered the challenge to the provisions of Section 153 of the Act academic. The Revenue had appealed the said decision before the Supreme Court. The said batch of appeals [Civil Appeal No.6634/2021 captioned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 20 v. M/s U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. and other connected matters] that also included Civil Appeal No.6656/2021 which arose from the order passed by this court in WP(C) 1708/2014, were dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the said decision and also recorded the following finding: “As observed hereinabove, as no incriminating material was found in case of any of the Assessees either from the Assessee or from the third party and the assessments were under Section 153-C of the Act, the High Court has rightly set aside the Assessment Order(s). Therefore, the impugned judgment and order(s) passed by the High Court do not require any interference by this Court. Hence, all these appeals deserve to the dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/05/2025 at 11:52:20

same in the event, the findings to the effect that no incriminating material was found in respect of the Assessee are clarified, or set aside, or recalled. We also clarify that the revival of the appeal in any such event would not automatically entail admission of the present appeals, The learned counsel for the Assessee had raised the objection as to the maintainability of the present appeals at threshold and therefore, this Court has not examined whether these appeals throw up any substantial questions of law as yet. 8. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications are also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 15, 2025 RK Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/05/2025 at 11:52:20