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 ‘C’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman
: Asstt. Year : 2017-18 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 ITA No. 769/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Elan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, L-1/1100, First Floor, Street No. 25, Central Circle-7, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110062 New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCE6806C Assessee by : Sh. Paritosh Jain, Adv. Sh. Rajat Jain, CA & Sh. Akshat Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
The instant batch of four appeals involves the twin assessee’s herein M/s Elan Ltd. and M/s Elan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Both these assessee’s have filed the respective appeals i.e. 2014-15 and 771 & 769/Del/2025 in assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20; against the CIT(A)-24, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. 771 & 773/Del/2025 Elan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1071035168(1), 1070939629(1), 1070970906(1) & 1070978946(1) dated 05.12.2024, 06.12.2024, 09.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both these assessees as well as the department through their respective learned representatives. Case files perused.
It transpires at the outset that both these assessee’s raise their first and foremost identical substantive ground challenging validity of the impugned section 153C assessments itself. There is not dispute between the parties that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in question in M/s Elan Group on 29.05.2018. Learned CIT-DR vehemently submits that it was the said search which led to seizure of the corresponding incriminating material followed by section 153C satisfaction recorded in these twin assessee’s cases on 19.01.2021. That being the case, there would be hardly any quarrel in light of PCIT vs. Jasjit Singh (2024) 336 CTR 634 (Delhi) and PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del.) that the date of initiation of the search in question in an instance of invocation of section 153C(1) 1st proviso could
A perusal of the case records next indicates that the learned Assessing Officer had recorded his satisfaction on 19.01.2021 followed by issuance of his notice dated 27.01.2021 to the assessee(s) as follows: “I have gone through the above mentioned documents and I am satisfied that above mentioned documents seized from the premises of M/a Elan India Pvt. Ltd., M/s Best Selling Realty Pvt. Ltd., M/s K & T Realty Services Pvt. Ltd, Golf view Corporate Tower, 2nd/3 rd Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector-12, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 party AP-6 & Ap-6A during the course of search belong to/contain information which relates M/s Elan Ltd. (PAN: AADCE3341G) and have a bearing on the determination of its total income. Hence, notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being issued for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018- 19 and notice u/s 143(2) for A.Y. 2019-20.”
Faced with this situation, Mr. Sidhu vehemently argues that the learned assessing authority had rightly proceeded against the assessee(s) after recording his satisfaction that the seized material in question “belong to/contain information which relates to M/s Elan Ltd.” His endeavour therefore is to support the above section 153C satisfaction as strictly in tune with the provisions of the Act.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions regarding validity of the impugned satisfaction. We find no 771 & 773/Del/2025 Elan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. merit to express our concurrence with the Revenue’s stand herein. We make it clear first of all that the learned Assessing Officer had admittedly involved both the foregoing statutory expressions “belongs to” as well as “relates to” herein which could not be held as a proper satisfaction in accordance with law. This is for the precise reason that the legislature has itself incorporated the foregoing former expression of “belongs to” as involving “any money, bullion, jewellery...........” etc. in sub- clause (a) and the latter category of “pertains to” or “relates to”; for any books of account or documents etc.; respectively. Learned CIT-DR couldn’t rebut the clinching fact that the assessing authority’s foregoing satisfaction has used both the above statutory expressions as interchangeable which is not in accordance with stricter interpretation in light of Commissioner Vs. Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SSC 1 (SC). This is indeed coupled with the fact that the tribunal’s learned “Third Member” in Prashant Premchand Bafana Vs. Addl. CIT [IT-462-ITAT-2025 (Pine)] has already settled the issue in the assessee’s favour that the above three statutory expressions have to be used in the specified circumstances thus treating them as interchangeable one. We are accordingly of the considered view that given the fact that the instant issue stand settled upto hon’ble Third Member u/s 255(4) of the Act, the impugned 771 & 773/Del/2025 Elan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. satisfaction herein has not been validly recorded which renders the corresponding assessment(s) herein as not sustainable in law. The same stand quashed in very terms therefore.
Same order to follow in the latter assessee M/s Elan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. three appeals 771 & 773/Del/2025 since involving identical set of facts/issues.
All other pleadings on merits between the parties stand rendered academic.