Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) who had allowed the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) relied on a High Court judgment, finding that the assessment year in question was beyond the six-year period prescribed under Section 153C of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal found no contrary judgment or differentiating facts from the department. It agreed with the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessment year was outside the ambit of Section 153C and Section 153A of the Act, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment year fell within the prescribed six-year period under Section 153C and 153A of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
153C, 153A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHIBENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Yogesh Kumar US & Sh. Naveen Chandra
ITA No. 3739/Del./2025 :Asstt. Year : 2014-15 ACIT, Vs Pooja Gupta, Central Circle-25, Plot No. BT-54, Shalimar New Delhi-110055 Bagh, New Delhi-1100888 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHHPG5864N Assessee by: None Revenue by: Sh. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 08.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.12.2025 ORDER
Per Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member:
The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-25 [‘Ld.
CIT(A)’ for short], New Delhi dated 13.02.2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15.
There is a delay of 5 days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the petition for condonation of delay, the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
In the above appeal, Revenue challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 13.02.2025 wherein the ld. CIT(A) by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del.), allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), Revenue preferred the captioned allowing the appeal.
It is found that the ld. CIT(A) while setting aside the assessment order observed that the year under consideration is not covered within the six assessment years as per section 153C of the Act and by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (surpa), held that the assessment year under consideration would fall beyond the ambit of six years provided u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, since there is no contrary judgment or differentiable facts brought on record by the department, we find no merits in the grounds of appeal of the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as devoid of merits.
In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.