AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The captioned two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the different orders, both dated 26.11.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Delhi-31 [“Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the different assessment orders both dated 27.03.2024 passed u/s 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively.
As the issues involved in both the appeals are identical thus, the same are decided by a common order for sake of convenience.
Briefly stated the facts are that the proceedings in both the Assessment Years were initiated by issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act on 31.03.2023 after recording the satisfaction by the AO of the assessee on 08.04.2022 that as a result of search carried out in the case of Alankit group, various documents and electronic data was found/seized, containing the details of providing accommodation entries of bogus loans and advances and one of the beneficiary was the assessee company. Thereafter, notices u/s 153C of the Act was issued for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2020-21 in the case of assessee. The assessee has challenged the said notices dt. 31.03.2023 issued u/s 153C of the Act for both the impugned years in Writ petition before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Hon’ble High Court in terms of the order dt. 03.04.2024 in WP(C) 2021/2024 & CM Appl. 8494/2024 has quashed the notice u/s 153C of the Act for AY 2010-11. Similarly vide order dt. 30.04.2024, the Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) 2083/2024 & CM Appeal Nos. 8641/2024 has quashed the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12. Since the assessment order u/s 153C of the Act was passed prior to the order of Hon’ble High Court, therefore, in first appeal, ld. CIT(A) by considering the orders of Hon’ble High Court has annulled the assessment orders so passed for both the impugned years.
Aggrieved by the said orders, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds in both appeals:
ITA No.3145/Del/2026 [Assessment Year : 2010-11]
1.“Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld.CIT A was justified in relying upon the judgement of Honble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT. Central 1, Delhi vs Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 52 of 2024, even when the Revenue has filed a SLP against this decision of the Honble Delhi High Court.
2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT A was justified in holding that block periods for assessment us 153C of the Income tax Act, 1961, have to be 2 calculated from the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents OR assets seized, by the jurisdictional AO of the non searched person OR from the date of issue of Notice us 153C of the Act and not from the date of initiation of search.
3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT A was justified was justified in holding that block period; for assessment us 153C of the Income tax Act, 1961 have to be calculated from the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents OR assets seized, by the jurisdictional AO 3 of the non-searched person OR from the date of issue of Notice issued us 153C of the Act and not from the date of initiation of search by relying on First Proviso to Section 153C. even when this Proviso cannot override the main provision of Section 153C1, which clearly mentions that calculation of block period has to be done from the year of search.
4.Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT A was justified in relying was justified in holding that block periods for assessment us 153C of the Income tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents OR assets seized OR date of Notice issued us 153C of the Act, by the jurisdictional AO of the non searched person, even when the position of law is clarified after the amendment introduced by Finance Act, 2017, that the block period of 6AYs and 10AYs as mentioned in sub section 1 of Section 153C and Section 153A have same meaning and have to be calculated from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted.
5.That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter OR modify any grounds of appeal at time of heiarng.”
ITA No.3146/Del/2026 [Assessment Year : 2011-12]
1.“Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the LLCIT(A) wat justified in relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT. Central-1. Delhi vs Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 52 of 2024), even when the Revenue has filed a SLP against this decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court?
2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized, by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person or from the date of issue of Notice u/s 153C of the Act and not from the date of initiation of search?
3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified was justified in holding that block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized, by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person or from the date of issue of Notice issued u/s 153C of the Act and not from the date of initiation of search by relying on First Proviso to Section 153C, even when this Proviso cannot override the main provision of Section 153C(1). which clearly mentions that calculation of block period has to be done from the year of search?
4.Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) was justified in relying was justified in holding that block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized or date of Notice issued u/s 153C of the Act, by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person, even when the position of law is clarified after the amendment introduced by Finance Act, 2017, that the block period of 6AYs and 10AYs as mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 153C and Section 153A have same meaning and have to be calculated from the "assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted"?
5.That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at time of hearing.”
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is observed that the hon’ble jurisdictional high court in terms of its orders dt. 03.04.2024 and dt. 30.04.2024 has quashed the notices issued u/s 153C of the Act for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 respectively. Since the notices issued by the AO u/s 153C of the Act were quashed, the AO has no basis to proceed for these two assessment years. Before us, the revenue has not placed any material to controvert the findings of the ld. CIT(A) nor any evidence is placed before us, challenging the order of the Hon’ble High Court. The contention of ld. CIT DR was that the Hon’ble High Court has quashed the notices issued u/s 153C of the Act by following its order in the case of Vineeta Gupta in WP(C) No. 3907/2023. However, admittedly when the order of the Hon’ble High Court in assessee’s own case for both the assessment years have not been challenged further, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find no reason to take a different view, thus by respectfully following the order of Hon’ble High Court stated supra, we uphold the orders of ld. CIT(A) in both the captioned appeals.
In the result, both appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos. 3145 & 3146/Del/2026 for Assessment Years 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 respectively, are dismissed.