DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. ANISHA GUPTA, NEW DELHI

ITA 3629/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 December 2025AY 2016-17Bench: the Tribunal.3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s decision which had allowed the assessees' (Basheshar Dayal, Ankur Gupta, Anisha Gupta) appeals arising from a common search and seizure action. The CIT(A) had quashed assessments for AY 2014-15 (and other AYs via mutatis mutandis application) made under Section 153C(1), primarily on the grounds that the escaped income did not meet the Rs. 50 lakh threshold for extended reopening, and that AY 2014-15 fell outside the statutory six-year assessment period relevant to search cases.

Held

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessment for AY 2014-15 under Section 153C(1) was invalid. It held that the conditions for reopening beyond six years were not met, as the aggregate escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs, and more critically, AY 2014-15 was beyond the permissible six-year period from the date of the satisfaction note or handover of seized material to the Assessing Officer.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in holding that AY 2014-15 falls outside the six-year block period for assessment under Section 153C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the conditions for reopening beyond six years (specifically the Rs. 50 lakh threshold) were met.

Sections Cited

253(2), 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.