DCIT vs Shiva Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

These Revenue’ s three appeals ITA Nos. 4 122 to 4124/Del/2025, for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2015-16, arise against the C IT(A)-26, New Delhi’s common order dated 27.02.2025 in case Nos. 26/1006 3/2009-10, 26/10145/2012-13 and 26/10653/2014-15, in proceedings u/s 153C r .w.s. 143(3) of the Inco me Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.

Heard both the p arties at length. Case files peruse d.

It transpires dur ing the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A) herein has quashed all the three se ctio n 153C r.w.s. 143(3) assessments herein; as not sustainable in law, for the precise reason that the former twin assessment years 2010-11 and 2013-14 fall beyond the statutory limitatio n of te n assessment years as on the date of search, which is to be calculated as on the date of necessary satisfaction to be s t recorded by the learned Assessing Officer under 1 proviso to section 153C(1) and in the last assessment year 2016-17, for want o f the relevant pecuniary limit of Rs.50,00 ,000/-, respectively.

This is what leaves the Revenue aggrieved who has filed it’s instant three cases before the tr ibunal.

Learned CIT-DR vehemently reiterates the Re venue’s stand that the CIT(A) herein has erred in law and on facts in quashing the impugned three assessments by holding that the former twin asse ssme nt years 2010-11 and 2013-14 fall beyond the statutory framework of ten assessment years; to be counted from the end of the assessment year as on the date of recording of satisfactio n, and , for the last assessment year 2015-16, he has wrongly held it as null and void for the reason that income escaping assessment is less than Rs.50,00,000/-; as the case may be.

We find no merit in either of the Revenue’ s instant twin submissions. This is for the precise reaso n that hon’ble jurisdictional hig h court recent landmark decisio n in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 IT R 101 (Del.); as followed in the CIT(A) lower appellate discussion, has already settled both these issues in the asse ssee’s favour and against the department thereby holding that going by section 153A(1) Explanatio n-I as applicable in an asse ssment to b e framed u/s 153C of the Act, has to count ten years “from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in the search is conducted...........”. We thus find merit in the assessee’s vehement submissions supporting the learned CIT(A) impugned lower appellate discussion quashing all these three assessments in very terms. The Revenue fails in it’s substantive ground raised in these three appeals therefore.

All other pleadings o n merits here in stand rendered academic.

These Revenue’s three appeals ITA Nos. 4122, 4123 & 4124/Del/2024 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.