DCIT vs M/s. Abhisar Estates Pvt. Ltd

PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:

The appeals in ITA No.9188 and 9187/Del/2025 for AYs 2010-11 and 2013-14, arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 15.09.2025 and 30.09.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 153A/ 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 05.03.2024 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Circle-28, 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 Alok Agarwal and others was carried out u/s 132 of the Act on 18.10.2019 / 19.10.2019. Consolidated Satisfaction note in the case of the assessee herein was recorded by the ld AO of the assessee on 10.05.2022 for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act in the hands of the assessee for the ten assessment years i.e. AYs 2010-11 to 2020-21. 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 AYs 2010-11 and 2013-14 as it was beyond the period of 10 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 2014-15 to 2023-24 only and that the case of the AYs 2010-11 and 2013-14 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 DR before us filed his written submissions stating that the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd is challenged by the revenue by way of Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. But we find that the said decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court has not been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence we are inclined to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court. We find that the ld DR through his written submissions is only trying to impress upon the bench by bringing on record how the 6 years or 10 years reckoning need to be understood by relying on the principles of interpretation of statutes, but when the same issue had already been considered and addressed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court, there is no reason for this Tribunal to diverge from the views of the higher forum. Hence we hold that the written submissions of the ld DR does not advance the case of the revenue on this issue.

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 AYs 2010-11 and 2013-14 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). Since the assessments are quashed for both the assessment years on this preliminary issue, the adjudication of other grounds become academic in nature and hence they are left open. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed.