DCIT vs Devesh Singh

PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:

The appeal in ITA No.9181/Del/2025 for AY 2011-12, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 24.09.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Circle-29, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

At the outset, the ld AR submitted an argument in support of challenging the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act for the year under consideration by stating that the year under consideration fall outside the prescribed block period and accordingly no assessment could be validly framed thereon. This is a preliminary issue going to the root of the matter and hence, we proceed to take up the same first for adjudication.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The search in the case of the assessee was carried out u/s 132 of the Act on 14.10.2020. Pursuant to the search, notice u/s 153A of the Act stood issued to the assessee dated 18.02.2022 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 also. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of AR Safiullah Vs. ACIT in CMP (MD) Nos. 3513, 3515 and 3516 of 2021 dated 24.03.2021 had categorically held that the Explanation 1 to Section 153A of the Act clearly provide for the manner of computation of 10 assessment years. Later the very same view was also endorsed by Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd reported in 161 taxmann.com 160 (Del HC). The assessee argued that the ld AO could not have initiated proceedings u/s 153A of the Act for AY 2011-12 as it was beyond the period of 10 years by placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions. The ld CIT(A) in para 8.10 of his order noted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare referred supra, the ld AO could have reopened the case of the assessee upto AY 2012-13 only and that the case of the AY 2011-12 falls outside the block period of 10 years from the end of the Assessment Year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted. Similar view was also endorsed by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of R.B. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India in WPO No. 438 of 2021 dated 28.12.2023. The ld CIT(A) duly appreciated the contentions of the assessee and by following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble High Court including the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held that the assessment order framed for AY 2011-12 as bad in law, as it was beyond the period of 10 years. Since, the decision has been rendered by following the decisions of the various High Courts including Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.

Further, we find that the grounds raised by the revenue were totally in the context of assessments being framed in the hands of a person u/s 153C of the Act and not u/s 153A of the Act. Hence, grounds raised by the revenue deserves to the dismissed on this count also as not emanating from the orders of the lower authorities.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.