DCIT vs Jitendra Kumar Chhabra

PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:

The appeal in ITA No.9183/Del/2025 for AY 2016-17, arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 11.09.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 15.12.2023 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Central Circle-15, 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 153C 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 Sanjay Bhaskar group companies and others were carried out u/s 132 of the Act on 30.03.2021. Satisfaction note in the case of the assessee herein was recorded by the ld AO of the assessee on 24.06.2022 for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act in the hands of the assessee for the six assessment years including AY 2016-17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Jasjit Singh reported in 458 ITR 437 (SC) had held that to initiate the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act and the time limit of six assessment years is to be computed with reference to the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the assessee. The date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the assessee for initiating proceedings u/s 153C of the Act shall have to be construed as the date of search qua the section 153C assessee. 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 153C of the Act for AY 2016-17 as it was beyond the period of 6 years by placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions. The ld CIT(A) by placing reliance on 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 only for AYs 2017-18 to 2022-23 only and that the case of the AY 2016-17 falls outside the block period of 6 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 2016-17 as bad in law, as it was beyond the period of 6 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.

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