DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. ANKUR GUPTA HUF, NEW DELHI

ITA 3626/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 December 2025AY 2014-15Bench: the Tribunal.3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order concerning assessments made under Section 153C(1) following a search and seizure action. The CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 fell beyond the six-year limitation period for assessment under Section 153C, especially since the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, thus not meeting the conditions for reopening beyond six years.

Held

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that AY 2014-15 was outside the permissible six-year block period for assessment under Section 153C(1) as per the Income Tax Act, 1961, because the conditions for reopening assessments beyond six years were not fulfilled.

Key Issues

The key legal issues were whether the CIT(A) was justified in relying on a Delhi High Court judgment despite the Revenue filing an SLP, and whether the block periods for assessment under Section 153C(1) correctly exclude AY 2014-15, specifically regarding the six-year limitation period from the date of satisfaction note or handover of seized material.

Sections Cited

253(2), 153C, 153C(1)

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.

We take revenue’s appeal in the case of Shri. Basheshar Dayal (A.Y. 2014-15), having as the lead case. Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“ (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.