DCIT, CC-27 vs Shiv Kumar (HUF)

Per Sudhir Kumar, JM:

These are Revenues’ appeals filed against the respective orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, New Delhi relevant for assessment hyears 2014-15 & 2015-16, involving proceedings under section 153Cof the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Since in both the revenues’ appeals, the identical issues are involved, hence, the same were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 79/Del/2026 (AY 2014-15), being the lead case.

Brief facts of the case are that the original return of income was filed, by the assessee on 17.7.2014 declaring income of Rs. 3,58,320/-. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out on 18.10.2019 in the case of M/s Alankit Limited, Shri Alok Kumar Aggarwal, Sh. Ankit Agarwal, M/s Alankit Group. During search proceedings some documents including digital data were found and seized. On perusal of the seized data/ documents it was found that certain documents and information contained therein pertains to the assessee. Thereafter, assessment was completed u/s. 153C of the Act by assessing total income at Rs. 9,33,400/- by making various additions. Against the same, assessee appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 23.9.2025 has allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that addition made by the AO which is below the amount threshold of Rs. 50 lacs and accordingly, the condition as prescribed under the proviso to Section 153A are not met. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. DR relied the order of the AO. He submitted that the case is not covered from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court passed in the Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd. (Supra)

We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that in the case of PCIT (Central-1) vs. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd. the Hon’ble High Court held that the block period was to be computed from date of receipt by the Assessing Officer of the non-searched person of books or documents or assets seized or requisitioned, where date of handing over of documents was not available, date of issuance of satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer under section 153C would be pertinent for the purpose of first proviso to section 153C(1). In this case search was conducted on the Alankit Group on 18.10.2019, but the seized documents were handed over to the AO of the assessee on 24.06.2022. For the assessee, the relevant search assessment year would be AY 2023-24. The Assessment year 2014-15 falls in the 9^th year. But the mandatory monetary threshold of Rs. 50 lacs as per the 4^th proviso of sub-section (1) of the Section 153A. Under the 4^th proviso to section 153A(1), a notice for an assessment year beyond the six year block but not later than 10 assessment years can only be issued if the AO has evidence that income represented in the form of an asset amounting to Rs. 50 lacs or more has escaped assessment in the AY’s 7^th to 10^th years under consideration. We note that AO also noted escaped income is is below the threshold limit of Rs. 50 lacs. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee on the jurisdictional issue, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same.

Respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, we are inclined to uphold the order of the ld. CIT (A) who has passed the well-reasoned and speaking order relying on the aforesaid decisions. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. Accordingly, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed for assessment year 2014-

As regards other appeal of revenue is concerned, the same is related to assessment year 2015-16, our decision given in assessment year 2014-15, as aforesaid will apply mutatis mutandis to this assessment year as well, being issue involved is identical in other remaining appeal of the Revenue also. Resultantly, the appeal for AY 2015-16 of the Revenue also stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner.

To sum up, both the Revenues’ appeals stand dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.