Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed four appeals against separate orders passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The appeals arose from proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following a search conducted on the 'Alankit group'.
Held
The Tribunal held that the impugned section 153C assessments were not sustainable. This was because the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating the proceedings pertained to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, while the impugned assessments were for the years 2017-18 to 2020-21, and there was no incriminating material for these specific years.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the validity of Section 153C assessments due to a lack of valid satisfaction recorded by the departmental authorities, based on relevant seized material for the assessment years in question.
Sections Cited
153C, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Date of hearing 30.09.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.09.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s four appeals to 862/Del/2025 for assessment years 2017-18 to 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s-25 separate orders, all dated 18.12.2024, having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1071346050(1), ITBA/APL/S/250/ 2024-25/1071346264(1), ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1071346551(1) and ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1071346658(1) involving proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
We notice at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned section 153C assessments itself for want of a valid satisfaction recorded by the learned departmental authorities.
A combined perusal of all these case files reveals that the search herein dated 18.10.2019 had been carried out in M/s. Alankit group. The Revenue’s vehement contention before us is that since they had come across various incriminating documents and evidence, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the searched party i.e. DCIT, Central Circle-28; New Delhi recorded his satisfaction that the same related or pertained to the assessee as representing various accommodation entries etc. All this followed the assessee’s
2 | P a g e Assessing Officer’s latter satisfaction recorded on 11.10.2022 so as to initiate the impugned proceedings which finally culminated in section 153C assessments under challenge before us. Learned CIT(DR)’s case, therefore, is that we ought to uphold the impugned twin satisfactions as the same has been recorded strictly in tune with the provisions of the Act only.