GLACIER TRADEX PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-29, DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded by the lower authorities under section 153C was non-est in the eyes of law. This was because it did not clearly specify the seized material belonging to the assessee and having a bearing on its income.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals against orders passed under section 153C and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The core issue revolved around the validity of the satisfaction recorded by the revenue authorities for initiating proceedings under section 153C.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of the satisfaction recorded by the revenue authorities for initiating proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act. This included whether the satisfaction met the requirements of the law and judicial precedents.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- PCIT v. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd.277 citing465 ITR 101 · 2024 · HC
- PCIT v. Dev Technofab Ltd.10 citing170 Taxmann.com 664 · 2025 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s twin appeals & 487/Del/2025 for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s orders, both dated 05.11.2024, passed in case nos. 10417/2016-17 and 10217/2017-18, involving proceedings under section 153C and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.
It emerges during the course of hearing that there is hardly much a need for us to delve with the relevant factual matrix at length. This is for the precise reason that the tribunal’s earlier coordinate bench’s decision in the assessee’s own appeal decided on 30th September, 2025 (AY: 2016-17) has already settled the issue that the lower authorities’ satisfaction recorded under section 153C of the Act is non-est in the eyes of law, as under: “2. It transpires during the course of hearing that at the outset the assessee has raised legal ground that the impugned twin section 153C assessments herein are not sustainable in law for want of a valid satisfaction recorded by the learned departmental authorities on 23rd September, 2019, reading as follows:
3. This being the clinching factual position, learned CIT(DR) could hardly dispute that the above extracted section 153C satisfaction has nowhere made it clear as to which specific seized material found during the course of search either belonged or pertained or related to the assessee thereby having a bearing on its income of the relevant 2 | P a g e previous year so as to satisfy the rigor of section 153C(1)(a) to (b) of the Act. Various judicial precedents i.e PCIT Vs. Dev Technofab Ltd. (2025) 170 taxmann.com 664 (SC) and PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd., (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh (2024) 465 ITR 101 (SC) have already settled the issue that a valid satisfaction forms sine qua non for initiation of section 153C proceedings culminating in the impugned assessments as is the assessee’s arguments before us.
Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in proceeding against the assessee under section 153C of the Act without recording a valid satisfaction. The Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the same stand rejected therefore. Both these impugned assessments for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 are hereby quashed in very terms.
These assessee’s twin appeals & 562/Del/2025 are allowed.”
That being the case, we adopt the foregoing detailed decision mutatis mutandis to annul the impugned section 153C twin assessments in question herein as non-est in the eyes of law in very terms. The Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the same are hereby rejected therefore.
More judgments on Section 153C
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ajay Singh, Kota vs DCIT, Central Circle, KotaITA 495/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026