Aman Agarwal vs DCIT, Central Circle-28

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

These 04 appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-25), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] all dated 10.09.2025 arising out the respective assessment orders u/s 153(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) pertaining to A.Yrs. 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since these appeal are related to same assessee and the issues involved therein are common/inter-connected, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with the case of ITA No. 7207/Del/2025 (AY 2014-15), being the lead case.

The Assessee has originally filed as many as 14 grounds in each appeal. But during the hearing, he has filed an application dated 5.3.2026 praying for admission of common additional grounds of appeal in all the three appeals under Rule 11 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The contents of the said application are reproduced as under:-

After perusing the aforesaid application for admission of additional grounds and upon hearing both the parties and in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to admit the aforesaid additional grounds, as the same are legal, do not require fresh facts to be investigated and goes to the root the matter. Accordingly, we admit the same.

During the hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee has only argued the aforesaid additional ground no. 3, and submitted that the satisfaction note recorded u/s. 153C is mechanical and bad in law as the same has been recorded in a composite /consolidated manner for various assessment years which is contrary to the settled position of law as held in the judgements of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma, (2024) 469 ITR 271 (SC), DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma, (2024) 469 ITR 197 (Kar) and other host of decisions, thus, , the assessment is bad in law and deserve to be quashed.

Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

We have heard the rival contentions, perused and considered the records alongwith the decisions on which the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance. The assessee by way of its additional ground no. 3 of appeal has assailed validity of assessment order as the same is mechanical and bad in law due to the fact that the same has been recorded in a composite/consolidated manner for various assessment years which is contrary to the settled position of law. In this case, a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act on Alankit Group comprising of key persons/ entities, viz., Shri Alok Kumar Agarwal, Shri Ankit Agarwal, M/s Alankit Limited, M/s Alankit Assignments Limited on 18.10.2019. Subsequently, common Satisfaction Note u/s. 153C was recorded on 05.04.2022. During the assessment proceedings notice u/s. 153C was issued on 24.11.2022 by the AO to which the assessee filed its return of income declaring the income on 9.1.2023 declaring an income of Rs. 3,91,18,650/-. Later, the case of the assessee was completed by AO/DCIT, CC-28, Delhi vide order dated 25.3.2023 at an assessed income for Rs. 14,05,22,240/- against the returned income for Rs. 3,91,18,650/-. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the learned departmental authorities had carried out search in issue in M/s. Alankit Group on 18.10.2019 wherein, it is alleged to have come across against the corresponding incriminating material against the assessee as well. There is further no issue between the parties that the assessee’s jurisdictional Assessing Officer; other than the searched party’s Assessing Officer, recorded his section 153C common satisfaction in its case on 05.4.2022 relating to assessment years 2010-11 to 2020-21, a copy of the same has been placed on record. A bare perusal thereof demonstrates that the Assessing Officer nowhere made it clear in the impugned satisfaction note dated 05.4.2022 that the alleged incriminating material sought to be proceeded against the assessee had a “bearing” on determination of its total income in all these assessment years.

However, Learned CIT(DR) at this stage vehemently supports the impugned satisfaction. His contention was that it is nowhere mandatory for the Assessing Officer to specifically incorporate the word “bearing” on the determination of the assessee’s taxable income in such a satisfaction note u/s 153C of the Act.

In the background of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in the aforesaid contention of the Revenue, as the present issue is no longer resintegra and stands squarely settled in the assessee’s favour and against the department, in the view of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of M/s Saksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1 (Delhi)(HC) wherein, their lordships have made it clear that the relevant satisfaction note must make it clear that the seized material sought to be used against the assessee indeed has a “bearing” of determination of its total taxable income. We thus accept the assessee’s instant first and foremost legal ground/argument and quash all these section 153C assessments in respect of all the three assessment years. Since the assessment have been quashed, as aforesaid, all other pleadings on merits between the parties have become academic and thus need not be adjudicated.

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee stand allowed in aforesaid manner.