AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The application for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing appeal and appeal filed by Department of Revenue are against order dated 22.12.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi 25 [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 25.03.2023 of Ld. Assessing Officer/DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 153C of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13.
Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act at income of NIL on 29.02.2012. In response to notice issued under Section 153C the Assessee filed submission that the ITR filed under Section 139 of the Act may be treated as returned. A search and seizure proceeding u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on the Alankit Group, Sh. Alok K Agarwal and some of the close associates and key employees of Sh. Alok K Agarwal on 18.10.2019. Incriminating seized evidences recovered during the course of search proceedings clearly establish that Sh. Alok Agarwal, had facilitated acquisition of shares of several shell entities for benefit of his own group as well as his known associates and clients. He has received and provided accommodation entries and also facilitated bogus short-term capital loss to set off long-term capital gains to various persons through several entities managed and controlled by him and his associates. Some incriminating documents were found from the premises in the name of the assessee; hence, case of the assessee was centralized to Central Circle-28, New Delhi. Notice u/s 153C of the Act dated 22.03.2022 was issued. The assessee filed his return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 15.03.2023 and detailed questionnaire under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 01.02.2023 were issued. The assessee filed his submissions. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 25.03.2023 made additions of Rs. 50,00,000/-/- u/s 68 of the Act, Rs. 28,00,000/- under Section 69C and Rs. 1,50,000/-under Section 69C of the Act.
Against order dated 25.03.2023 of Ld.AO, the Assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was allowed vide order dated 22.12.2025.
Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed application for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing appeal and appeal
In application for condonation of delay of 13 days, it is submitted that the delay was due to heavy workload in time barring scrutiny cases, appeal effect etc. The explanation for condonation of delay does not smack of mala fides as the assessee has not gained anything by not filing of appeal within period of limitation. Therefore, the delay of 13 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal is condoned.
Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in relying upon judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of PCIT, Central Circle-1, Delhi vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 52/2024 even when Revenue has filed a SLP against decision.
Ld. Authorized Representative for assessee relied on impugned order.
From examination of record, in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) observed as under:-
“12.From the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, it would be seen that it has been held that the block of six AYs' would have to be identified bearing in mind the AY pertaining to the FY in which the search had been conducted or requisition made or seized material handed over; however, the ten AYs' are to be computed or reckoned from the end of the AY relevant to such year of search. Accordingly, it has been held that if the Satisfaction Notes have been recorded or Section 153C notices have been issued between the period 01 April 2021 to 31 March 2022, then the relevant AY would be AY 2022-23 and accordingly AY 2022-23 would form the first year of the block of ten AYs' and the period of ten AYs' would terminate in AY 2013-14, and accordingly notices issued for assessment years prior to AY 2013-14 would fall beyond the ambit of ten AYs' as provided under section 153C read with section 153A.
12.1It is seen that facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the aforesaid case in Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd (supra), which for the sake of convenience are tabulated hereunder:
S.No. Particulars Facts of Ojjus Medicare (P.)Ltd. Facts of the case of the appellant a Date of search and seizure operation 18.10.2019 18.10.2019 b Person on whom search was conducted Alankit Group of Companies/entities Alankit Group of Companies/entities c Date of issue of notice under Section 153C 22.03.2022[F.Y 2021-22] 22.03.2022 [F.Y 2021-22] d Assessment years for which proceedings under Section 153C were initiated 2010-11 to 2020-21 2010-11 to 2020-21 e Date of passing of the assessment order 25.03.2023 25.03.2023 12.2Thus, in this case, notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the appellant on 22.03.2022, which date falls in the AY 2022-23. As seen from copies of documents furnished during appellate proceedings, the satisfaction note was recorded by the AO of the searched person on 14.02.2022 and subsequently recorded by the AO of the 'other person'/appellant, wherein the date of handing over of documents is mentioned as 17.02.2022, which dates fall in the FY 2021-22 relevant to AY 2022-23. Thus, the relevant FY for reckoning the 'date of search' in this case would be FY 2021-22 pertaining to AY 2022-23.
12.3It is thus seen that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts considered in the case of Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd (Supra) (which also refers to the same Search and seizure operation on the Alankit group].
12.4Accordingly, based on the aforesaid facts in the instant case of the appellant, following the binding judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court as per judicial discipline, it is held that the period of ten AYs' would commence being counted w.e.f the AY 2022-23, which, by backward counting, would terminate in AY 2013-14. Accordingly, respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd (supra), it is held that notice issued on 22.03.2022 for instant assessment year, AY 2012-13 would fall beyond the ambit of ten AYs' as provided under section 153C read with section 153A, and hence the impugned assessment order passed on 25.03.2023 u/s 153C of the Act for the instant AY 2012-13 in pursuance of such notice would not survive, having no legs to stand, and is thus annulled, being beyond the period of 10 years.
12.5As it is held that the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to assess the appellant's case for the A.Y 2012-13, therefore, all the other grounds, legal as well as on merits, raised by the appellant, are rendered academic in nature and hence not required to be adjudicated upon. There is thus no adjudication on merits in this case.”
So, it is evident on record that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 22.12.2025, by following ratio of Jurisdictional High Court in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. had held the impugned assessment order dated 25.03.2023 to be illegal. Mere pendency of SLP against the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court is of no consequence. Therefore, the grounds of appeal being devoid of merit are rejected. The grounds of appeal of Revenue are rejected.
In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing appeal is allowed and the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.