Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order, which had allowed the assessee's appeal by quashing assessments for Assessment Year 2014-15 and other years, initiated under Section 153C following a search and seizure. The CIT(A) found that the alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs, and Assessment Year 2014-15 fell outside the six-year limitation period for reopening, citing a Delhi High Court judgment.
Held
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that Assessment Year 2014-15 was not within the six-year period prescribed by Section 153C, as the conditions for reopening assessments beyond six years, particularly the Rs. 50 lakh threshold for escaped income, were not satisfied in the satisfaction note recorded. Consequently, the impugned assessment orders passed by the AO were held to be unsustainable.
Key Issues
Whether Assessment Year 2014-15 fell within the six-year limitation period for assessment under Section 153C(1), considering the conditions for reopening assessments beyond six years and the Rs. 50 lakh threshold for escaped income.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 153C(1), 253(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI, AM:
The above captioned appeals are filed by Revenue i.e., DCIT, CC-28, New Delhi, u/s 253(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”) before the Tribunal.
Since all the appeals arise on account of the same search and seizure action in the group cases and facts as well as the issues are common in all the appeals, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
“ (i) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT, Central-1, Delhi vs Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 52 of 2024), even when the Revenue has filed a SLP against this decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court?
(ii) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that block periods for assessment under section 153C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated six years prior to the AY in which satisfaction note was recorded by concerned Assessing Officer or seized material pertaining to the non-searched person was handed over to the AO even when Section 153C(1) of the Act clearly 2 | P a g e , 3625/DEL/2025- DCIT CC vs Basheshar Dayal 3627/DEL/2025- DCIT CC vs Ankur Gupta 3629/DEL/2025- DCIT CC vs Anisha Gupta 4.1. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: “ 19. From the above, it seen that the aggregate of the income having escaped assessment as per the satisfaction note recorded on 10.05.2022 falls short of Rs. 50 lakhs. There is nothing in the satisfaction note to show that the income, represented in the form of asset which has escaped assessment amounted to or was likely to amount to Rs. 50 lakhs or more in the relevant assessment year or in aggregate in the relevant assessment years in the case of the appellant under consideration.
Thus, the conditions spelt out in the statute and as interpreted by the Hon’ble Courts for permitting reopening beyond six years was not fulfilled in the instant case. Accordingly, the AO could have reopened the case of the appellant up to the A.Y 2017- 18 only. The case of the A.Y. 2014-15 falls beyond the period of six years from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the satisfaction note was drawn/ seized material pertaining to the non- searched person was handed over to the AO. The period of six years therefore, terminates with the A.Y. 2017-18.
Relying on the above-mentioned case laws and respectfully following the judgements of the Hon’ble Courts, it is clear that A.Y. 2014-15 is not covered within six AYs as per section 153C of the Act. The impugned assessment order passed by the AO thus cannot be upheld. Accordingly, ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal are allowed. ”
4.2. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
ITA No. 3624, 3625/DEL/2025- DCIT CC vs Basheshar Dayal 3627/DEL/2025- DCIT CC vs Ankur Gupta 3629/DEL/2025- DCIT CC vs Anisha Gupta [DCIT Vs Ankur Gupta HUF]; AY 2014-15, [DCIT Vs Ankur Gupta HUF]; AY 2015-16, [DCIT Vs Anisha Gupta]; AY 2014-15, ITA No. 3629/Del/2025 [DCIT Vs Anisha Gupta]; AY 2016-17, are identical, the above order shall apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals also.
In the result, all the six appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18-12-2025.