Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order quashing the assessment under Section 153C. The assessment order itself stated that no seized material pertaining to the assessee for the relevant financial year was found, and the seized material from a different year did not indicate undisclosed income.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Section 153C assessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer's own order confirmed no relevant seized material was found for the assessee. The Tribunal also relied on a High Court decision stating that a satisfaction note under Section 153C is unsustainable without indicating the income to be assessed.
Key Issues
Validity of assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found.
Sections Cited
153C, 143(3)
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, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection i.e.
CO No. 114/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)-24, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1073629429(1) dated 24.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
It transpires at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the learned Assessing Officer’s CO No. 114/Del/2025 Rajesh Kumar Kalra section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) assessment itself dated 26.03.2023 as quashed in the lower appellate discussion. This is for the precise reason that he has been himself very fair in making it clear at page 11 of the assessment order that no entry in the corresponding seized material alleged to be belonging to the assessee pertaining to the relevant financial year 2012-13 had been found or seized in the course of search. This clinching factual position has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side.
Faced with this situation, learned CIT-DR vehemently argues that the Assessing Officer had indeed carried out detailed enquiries and investigation(s) whilst making the impugned addition(s) in the assessee’s hands. We find no merit in the Revenue’s arguments once it has come on record that the seized material pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17 nowhere indicated the assessee’s undisclosed income so as to trigger the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent landmark decision in Saksham Commodities Ltd. v.ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1 (Del.) has further settled the issue in the assessee’s favour and against the department that such a satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C of the Act without indicating the relevant assessment year’s income liable to be assessed is not sustainable in law. We thus CO No. 114/Del/2025 Rajesh Kumar Kalra find no reason to interfere with the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion quashing the impugned assessment. The Revenue fails in it’s instant appeal therefore.
The assessee’s cross objection CO No. 114/Del/2025 is dismissed as rendered infructuous.
To sum up, this Revenue’s appeal CO No. 114/Del/2025 is dismissed as rendered infructuous. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 04/12/2025.