JCIT(OSD), JHANDEWALAN vs. NARENDRA AGGARWAL, FARIDABAD

PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM :

This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld.
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to ‘Ld.
CIT (A)’) dated 28.11.2024 for AY 2015-16. 2. Heard and perused the grounds. The brief facts giving rise in this appeal are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act for AY 2015-16 on 20.8.2015 at total income of Rs. 6,20,97,150/-.
Pursuant to a Warrant Authorization issued by the Director of Income Tax (Inv.),

2
Delhi a search operation u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in Sh. Puneet Kulthia by the Investigation Wing, Delhi on 08.03.2017 and on subsequent dates at different business and residential premises of Sh. Puneet Kulthia. Various incriminating papers/ documents were found and seized during the course of search and seizure operation in the group cases. The AO passed the assessment order u/s.
143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2017 wherein the returned income was accepted at Rs.
6,20,97,150/-. Accordingly, the claim of short term capital gains on sale of shares of M/s KD Trend Wear Limited and M/s Parnav Sports Academy Limited was not disturbed. Thereafter, the PCIT initiated the proceedings under section 263 of the Act and set aside the assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) in terms of the provisions of section 263 of the Act and directed the AO to frame fresh assessment after considering the observations of PCIT in the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act on 31.3.2021 to reexamine the issue of short term capital gains involving penny stock. Subsequently, on appeal filed by the appellant before the ITAT against the order passed by the PCIT under section 263 of the Act, the ITAT, Delhi Bench vide its order in ITA No. 456/Del/2021 dated 04.04.2022 set aside the aforesaid order of PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. Subsequently, the Department went in appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against the order passed by the ITAT and the Delhi High Court upheld the stand of the ITAT and decided the matter in appellant’s favour in its order dated 17.9.2024. In the meantime, another proceeding under section 153C of the Act was initiated on 09.10.2021 consequent to a search action conducted under section 132 of the Act in the case of Shri Puneet
Kalthia on 08.03.2017. The basis of initiation of this proceedings would be understood if one refers to the satisfaction note of the AO of the appellant (non- searched person). The satisfaction of AO of the appellant was submitted during the course of appellate proceedings. The satisfaction note dated 17.09.2021 indicates a 3
document in A-8 of panchanma dated 09.03.2017 which was found and seized from the premises of Puneet Kulthia containing certain communications through
Apple phone between Puneet Kulthia and the appellant in respect of cash transactions. The digital data were put in a consolidated manner as per the satisfaction note. This indicates that the purported cash transactions are relating to a period from 07.12.2015 to 09.12.2015 pertaining to AY 2016-17. However, the assessment proceeding was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act on 27.12.2022 wherein addition u/s. 143(3) of the Act was made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act in respect of involving penny stock involving sale of shares of M/s KD Trend Wear Limited and M/s
Parnav Sports Academy Limited. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A), decided the juri ictional grounds and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:-
“6.1
I have gone through the submissions made by the appellant, the contention of the AO, the extant the legal provisions and decided the appeal as under. The appellant has taken several grounds on legal validity of assumption of juri iction to initiate proceeding under section 153C of the Act apart from grounds in respect of merit. On merit, it has submitted that the AO passed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2017 wherein the returned income was accepted.
Accordingly, the claim of short-term capital gains on sale of shares of M/s
K.D. Trend wear Limited and M/s Parnav Sports Academy Limited was not disturbed Thereafter, the PCIT initiated the proceeding under section 263 of the Act and set aside the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) in terms of the provisions of section 263 of the Act and directed the AO to frame fresh assessment after considering the observations of PCIT in the order passed u/s 263 of the Act on 31-03-2021 to re-examine the 4
issue of short-term capital gains involving penny stock. Subsequently, on appeal filed by the appellant before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal (ITAT) against the order passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench vide its order in ITA No 456/Del/2021 dated 04 04.2022 set aside the aforesaid order of PC IT passed under section 263 of the Act. Subsequently, the Department went in appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the order passed by Hon’ble ITAT and Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the stand of Hon'ble ITAT and decided the matter in appellant’s favour in order dated 17-9-2024. In view of this, the appellant contended that the income involving transaction of penny stock has come to finality. However, as said, the appellant has taken a number of grounds challenging the validity of assumption of juri iction under section 153C of the Act. He has relied on several decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the juri ictional
High Court to support its claim So, before deciding the grounds on merit, the technical grounds are decided first.

5
incriminating documents of cash transactions relate to AY 2016-17 and therefore, no proceeding under section 153C of the Act could be initiated as the said material does not have a bearing in determining the total income of the assessment year 2015-16. Fourth, as in this case a consolidated satisfaction note had been recorded for all the assessment years, it would vitiate entire assessment proceedings in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Sharma [2024] 165
taxmann.com 846 (SC).

6
document after recording the satisfaction to the AO of the appellant.
Subsequently, the AO of the appellant recorded his satisfaction on 17
09.2021and issued notice under section 153C of the Act to the appellant on 09.10.2021. The assessment order was passed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Acton 27.12 2022. Legal framework for initiation of proceeding under section 153C

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148. section 149, section 151 and section 153. where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that.— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to. a person other than the person referred to in section 153A. then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having juri iction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if. that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant

7
to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub- section (1) of section 153A.

Provided that in case of such other person the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having juri iction over such other person.

Provided further that the Central Government may by rules made by it and published in the Official Gazette, specify the class or classes of cases in respect of such other person, in which the Assessing Officer shall not be required to issue notice for assessing or reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years as referred Io in sub-section (1) of section 153A except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated.

8
other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May. 2003.The Assessing Officer shall—

(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in clause (b) referred to in clause (b). in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139;
(b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made:
Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years:
6.7 A collective reading of the aforesaid provisions would provide the legal framework of application of section 153C of the Act where search is conducted before 01 04.2017 In the instant case the search action had taken place on 08.03.2017 In brief, in the case of person other than the searched person, assessment or reassessment under section 153C of the Act was not automatic unlike the case of searched person Such assessment or reassessment could take place only when firstly, the AO of searched person was satisfied that the seized assets/documents belong/pertain/relate to a person other than the searched person and 9
hands over the seized assets/documents to the AO of other person, and secondly, thereafter, the AO of such other person should also be satisfied that seized assets/ documents forwarded to him have being on the determination of total income of the other person for the year under consideration. Further, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Sharma [2024] 165 taxmann.com 846 (SC) affirming the decision of and Delhi High Court, satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C of the Act for each assessment year separately. Alternatively, the court has held that where a consolidated satisfaction note had been recorded for different assessment years, it would vitiate entire assessment proceedings. Assessing Officer of the such other person shall Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made as per sub-section (1) of section 153A for assessing or reassessing the total income. As per first proviso to section 153C, in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search or making of requisition shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving of such books of account or documents or assets by the juri ictional AO.
Therefore, for the purposes of section 153C, the date of search is not relevant Here, the date of receiving of books of account or documents or assets by the juri ictional AO is the reference point for deciding the assessment years for which an assessment or reassessment is required to be made.

10
6.8 Further, notice under section 153C of the Act could be issued for only such assessment years being unabated/completed years in respect of which there was incriminating material in possession of this legal position has been settled by the Apex court in PCIT Vs Abhisar Build well (P.) Ltd
[2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) and PCIT vs. S.S. Con Build (P.) Ltd.
[2023] 151 taxmann.com 317 (SC). ln addition to the above, not only there should be incriminating matenal but those incriminating material would be havingbearing on the determination of total income for such years so as to initiate proceedings under section 153C of the Act This position of law is now settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v.
Singhad Technical Education Society [TS-5145-SC-2017-0] and has been recently endorsed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Saksham
Commodities Limited in [TS- 5160-HC-2024(Delhi).

Further reliance may be made in the case of juri ictional High Court in DEV TECHNOFAB LTD. Vs. DCIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 514 (DHC)
- Dtd.24.05.24. In view of the above legal position, the appellant succeeds on this ground of appeal. Accordingly, this ground on validity of assumption of juri iction is allowed.

15
[2023] 150 taxmann.com 108 (SC), dated 25.04.23 has held, while confirming the decision of the High Court in setting aside the Assessment order that where no incriminating material was found in case of any of assessee either from assesses or from third party, the assessment made under section 153C of the Act is invalid. In the light of the above, the appellant succeeds on this ground as well.

16
6.14
In view of the aforesaid discussions and by following the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the juri ictional High Court as mentioned above, the appellant's grounds on legal validity of assumption of Juri iction are allowed.

17
consequently, the proceedings under Section 153C are justified. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) also erred in concluding that the proceedings under Section 153C were invalid, and in doing so, overlooked the fact that the entire reassessment process was based on the directions issued by the PCIT in his order under Section 263. The assessment year in question, AY 2015-16, was subject to reassessment and scrutiny, and therefore. The juri iction under Section 153C was rightly invoked. She further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erroneously relied on the rulings in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvi. Ltd. (2023), DCIT v. U.K. Paints
(Overseas) Ltd. and Kabul Chawla, which emphasize that no additions can be made to completed/unabated assessments without incriminating material. The CIT(A) failed to recognize that, due to the PCIT's intervention under Section 263, the assessment for AY 2015-16 was not finalized and thus subject to further reassessment, making the principles from those cases inapplicable in this instance.
It was the further contention that Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such as CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society (397 IT 344) and other related cases, which require incriminating material to be directly related to the assessment year in question for juri iction to be assumed under Section 153C. In the present case, the proceedings under Section 263 were initiated to examine the genuineness of short-term capital gains, and the PCIT had observed that the AO did not adequately investigate the matter, leading to the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the invocation of Section 153C and issuance of notice by the AO was justified based on these specific circumstances. It was also submitted that CIT(A) failed to consider that the additions made in the assessment were not primarily based on the satisfaction note recorded under Section 153C, but gather on the directions given by the PCIT in his

18
order under Section 263. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Indian
National Congress v. DCIT upheld that a composite satisfaction note is valid if it details the seized material and pertains to the block assessment years. Hence, the reliance on the satisfaction note, though consolidated, does not vitiate the proceedings under Section 153C in this particular case.
5. Per contra, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the findings of the ld.
CIT(A). He submitted that in this case original assessment made u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 27.12.2017 and consequent 263 order was passed on 31.3.2021 by the PCIT, which was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 04.04.2022 quashed the 263 proceedings made by the PCIT. Against which the Department went in appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, the Hon’ble High
Court upheld the order of the ITAT. He contended the appeal on the assumption of juri iction u/s. 153C of the Act and according to which AO has not assumed in accordance with law. His emphasis was on the ‘satisfaction note’ dated
06.10.2021, at pages 137 to 142 of the Assessee’s Paper Book. He further submitted that the deemed date of search, in the case of assessee being the person other than the searched person, is 17.09.2021 when information was handed over to the AO of assessee by AO of searched person as per the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Jasjit Singh (2023) 458 ITR 0437. The Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction noted on 17.9.2021 for (AY 2021-22,
2020-21, 2019-20, 2018-19, 2017-18, 2016-17) and satisfaction note dated
6.10.2021 for the instant assessment year and issued notice u/s. 153C of the Act dated 09.10.2022. Therefore, the impugned year is beyond 6 years and is thus outside of block period, and hence, the AY 2015-16 is outside the provisions of section 153C of the Act. Also it is noted that as per satisfaction note, year should have been AY 2016-17 and not AY 2015-16 and no material is there for AY 2015-

19
16, which is contrary to view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). Further, it was submitted that the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction year-wise rather recorded a satisfaction in single consolidated satisfaction, which is also against the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs.
Singhad Technical Education Society. It was further submitted that AY 2015-16 is unabated assessment and hence in the absence of incriminating material for AY
2015-16, no addition could be made in 153C/153A assessment, in view of the decision in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) and PCIT vs. UK Paints India P Ltd. (2025) 170 taxmann.com 52 (SC).

20
document about the incriminating material belong to the assessee for the relevant year found in the search leading to assumption of juri iction. We observed that Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction note on 17.9.2021 for (AY 2021-22,
2020-21, 2019-20, 2018-19, 2017-18, 2016-17) and satisfaction note dated
6.10.2021 for the instant assessment year and issued notice u/s. 153C of the Act dated 09.10.2022. Therefore, the impugned year is beyond 6 years and is thus outside of block period, and hence, the AY 2015-16 is outside the provisions of section 153C of the Act. Also it is noted that as per satisfaction note, year should have been AY 2016-17 and not AY 2015-16 and no material is there for AY 2015-
16, which is contrary to view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). Further, it is observed that Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction year-wise rather recorded a satisfaction in single consolidated satisfaction, which is against the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Singhad Technical
Education Society.
6.1
It is also noted that in the instant case, the proceeding under section 153C of the Act was initiated consequent to a search & seizure action conducted under section 132 of the Act in the case of Puneet Kulthia on 08.03.2017 wherein certain documents/information pertaining to the assessee was found and seized.
Thereafter, the AO of the searched person handed over the said seized document after recording the satisfaction to the AO of the assessee. Subsequently, the AO of the assessee recorded his satisfaction on 17 09.2021 and issued notice under section 153C of the Act to the appellant on 09.10.2021. The assessment order was passed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Acton 27.12 2022. 21
Before discussing the issues, we may refer here the provisions of section 153C and 153A as under:-

“Section 153C of the Act provides as under:

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148. section 149, section 151 and section 153. where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that.— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to. a person other than the person referred to in section 153A. then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having juri iction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if. that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment yer relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub- section (1) of section 153A.

Provided that in case of such other person the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having juri iction over such other person.

Provided further that the Central Government may by rules made by it and published in the Official Gazette, specify the class or classes of cases in respect of such other person, in which the Assessing Officer shall not be required to issue notice for assessing or reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year

22
relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years as referred Io in sub-section (1) of section 153A except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated.

Further, section 153A of the Act provides that:

"153A Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139. section 147. section 148. section 149 section 151 and section 153. in the case of a person where a search is initialed under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May. 2003.The Assessing Officer shall—

(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in clause (b) referred to in clause (b). in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139;
(b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made:
Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years:”

23
than the searched person and hands over the seized assets/documents to the AO of other person, and secondly, thereafter, the AO of such other person should also be satisfied that seized assets/ documents forwarded to him have being on the determination of total income of the other person for the year under consideration.
Further, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar
Sharma [2024] 165 taxmann.com 846 (SC) affirming the decision of and Delhi
High Court, satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C of the Act for each assessment year separately. Alternatively, the court has held that where a consolidated satisfaction note had been recorded for different assessment years, it would vitiate entire assessment proceedings. Assessing Officer of the such other person shall Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made as per sub-section (1) of section 153A for assessing or reassessing the total income. As per first proviso to section 153C, in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search or making of requisition shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving of such books of account or documents or assets by the juri ictional AO. Therefore, for the purposes of section 153C, the date of search is not relevant here, the date of receiving of books of account or documents or assets by the juri ictional AO is the reference point for deciding the assessment years for which an assessment or reassessment is required to be made. Also it is noted that notice under section 153C of the Act could be issued for only such assessment years being unabated/completed years in respect of which there was incriminating material in possession of this legal position as has been settled by the Apex court in PCIT Vs
Abhisar Build well (P.) Ltd [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) and PCIT vs. S.S.

24
Con Build (P.) Ltd. [2023] 151 taxmann.com 317 (SC). In addition to the above, not only there should be incriminating material but those incriminating material would be having bearing on the determination of total income for such years so as to initiate proceedings under section 153C of the Act. This position of law is now settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Singhad Technical Education
Society [TS-5145-SC-2017-0] and has been endorsed by Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in the case of Saksham Commodities Limited in [TS- 5160-HC-
2024(Delhi). The basis of initiation of this proceeding would be understood if one refers to the satisfaction note of the AO of the appellant (non-searched person).
The satisfaction of AO of the assessee was placed before us with the Paper Book at pages 143 to 148 of the assessee’s paper book The satisfaction note dated
17.09.2021 indicates a document in A-8 of panchanama dated 09.03.2017 which was found and seized from the premises of Puneet Kulthia containing certain communications through Apple phone between Puneet Kulthia and the appellant in respect of cash transactions. The digital data were put in a consolidated manner as per the satisfaction note in page no. 148. This indicates that the purported cash transactions are relating to a period from 07.12.2015 to 09.12.2015 pertaining to AY 2016-17. However, the assessment proceeding was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act on 27.12.2022 wherein addition of INR
4,65,02,946/- was made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in respect of transactions involving penny stock involving sale of shares of M/s K.D.
Trend wear Limited and M/s Parnav Sports Academy Limited. The additions are emanated from the regular books of account maintained by the appellant.
Alternatively, the additions have not been made on the basis of any incriminating material which is in form of certain cash transactions as evidenced from the satisfaction note. Therefore, in view of the Hon’ble Supreme court's decision in 25
DCIT Vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 108 (SC), the decisions of juri ictional High Court in CIT Vs Kabul Chawla(2016) 380 ITR
573(Delhi) etc., no proceeding could be initiated under section 153C of the Act in the absence of any incriminating documents. The incriminating material, if any pertains to financial year 2015-16 relating AY 2016-17 as evidenced from the satisfaction note of AO of the appellant discussed above. As per the satisfaction note, the purported incriminating material is in respect of certain cash transactions for the period 7.12.2015 to 09.12.2015 relating to FY 2015-16 (AY 2016-17). As discussed above, the legal requirement to assume juri iction under section 153C of the Act is that such incriminating material should have a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee. Apparently, the cash transactions that are relating to the appellant pertain to AY 2016-17 and therefore, do not have a bearing on determination of total income of the appellant for A Y
2015-16. Hence, notice issued under section 153C of the Act is contrary to the provisions of law. This issue has now been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VS. SINGHAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY 397 ITR
344 (SC) wherein the Apex Court has held that incriminating material seized must pertain to assessment years in question in order to assume juri iction to issue notice under section 153C of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble
Juri ictional High Court in the case of Saksham Commodities Limited in [TS-
5160-HC-2024(Delhi)]. The Court has held that "the discovery of material likely to implicate the assessee and impact the assessment of total income for a particular AY was not intended to set off a chain reaction or a waterfall effect on all AYs' which could form part of the "relevant assessment year”. The juri ictional Assessing Officer ('AO') would have to firstly be satisfied that the material received was likely to have a bearing on or impact the total income of 26
years or years which may form part of the block of six or ten AYs’ and thereafter proceed to place the assessee on notice under Section 153-C of the Act. Hence, on this account, the Revenue fails to substantiate its case.

29
7. Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, we are of the considered view that the Ld.
CIT(A) has passed a well, reasoned order, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of December, 2025. (MANISH AGARWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated : 19.12.2025

SRBHATNAGGAR