UNICURE INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. PR, CIT 3 CENTRAL DELHI, DELHI

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) [in short, the “PCIT”], Delhi’s-3 DIN and order no. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2024-25/1075307839(1), dated 30.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Cased called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

Learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues that the PCIT herein has rightly termed the Assessing Officer’s section 153C assessment dated 29th March, 2024 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue since neither any inquiry had been conducted regarding the commission of Rs.25 lakhs involving M/s. AAR ESS (one of the entities of M/s Bhasin group) nor the assessee could explain the same in the revision proceedings which makes it a clear-cut case of exercise of revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective pleadings. There could be hardly any dispute that the assessing authority had framed it’s assessment under section 153C of the Act involving an “unabated” assessment year wherein any addition could be made only on the basis of incriminating material found/seized during the course of search only in light of PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC). We further make it clear that the relevant date of section 153C notice in the assessee’s case was 09.02.2024; and, therefore, the assessment year 2020-21 before us very much involves an “unabated” assessment going by 153C(1) 1st proviso as the date of 2 | P a g e search in such a case is the date of recording of satisfaction as settled in PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd., (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del), CIT-7 Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh (2024) 465 ITR 101 (SC). That being the case, it emerges that there is not even an iota of material in the learned PCIT’s impugned revision direction that the above amount of Rs.25 lakhs is based on a specific incriminating material so as to form subject matter of addition in the search assessment framed in the assessee’s case.

We thus find merit in the assessee’s third substantive ground raising the very legal plea to reverse the learned PCIT’s impugned revision direction in very terms as the assessment herein not adding the above sum could not be termed as an erroneous one in light of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). Ordered accordingly.