Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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, ‘A’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER
Date of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, [in short the “CIT(A)”], Noida’s order dated 05.12.2023 passed in Case No.
CIT(A), Kanpur-4/11079/2017-18, involving proceedings under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused. foremost issue of the validity of ld. Assessing Officer’s assessment dated 10.09.2021 itself framed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
There is no dispute that the learned departmental authorities had conducted a search action in M/s Satyapal Gupta and Others group dated 30.11.2017 which made the Assessing Officer to issue section 143(2) notice finally culminating in the impugned assessment. Learned counsel therefore pleads in this factual backdrop that in the given facts, once the Assessing Officer had recorded his satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act on 26.09.2019, he ought to have framed his assessment only u/s 153C of the Act than that under the general provisions herein.
The Revenue on the other hand vehemently submits that impugned assessment has been framed u/s 153C of the Act only since the prescribed authority had duly approved the same u/s 153D of the Act as per the assessment order before us.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and Revenues foregoing contentions. A perusal of the case file records indicates that the learned Assessing authority had in fact filed its remand report dated 26.02.2023 (pages 38 to 40 of the paper book) before the CIT(A) wherein it has itself clarified that the assessment for the impugned assessment year have been framed only u/s 143(3) of the Act. This being the clinching factual position, we hereby quote the landmark judicial precedents i.e. PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd., (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh (2024) 465 ITR 101 (SC) conclude that the impugned assessment framed u/s 143(3) is not sustainable in law for this precise reason that it ought to have been completed u/s 153C of the Act; the same stands quashed in very terms above.
All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.
The assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th November, 2025.