AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA Nos.3796 & 3797/Del/2026 for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s-25 orders, both dated 15.12.2025, having DINs and Orders No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1083681800(1) and 1083681988(1), involving proceedings under section 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
The Revenue raises the following identical substantive grounds in its “lead” appeal ITA No. 3796/Del/2026:
“Grounds of appeals
M/s Maharaja Agarsain Builders Private Limited: 2011-12
1.Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the Addition of Rs. 42,50,000/- made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act.
2.Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the Addition of Rs. 1,27,500/- made u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act.
3.Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the Addition of Rs. 19,26,486/- made u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act.
4.Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the Addition of Rs. 16,30,153/- made u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
5.Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the Addition of Rs. 1,85,94,693/- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act.
6.Whether the computation of the block period under Sections 153C and 153A of the Income Tax Act, as interpreted by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., aligns with the legislative intent and procedural flexibility outlined in CBDT Circular No. 2/2018 dated 15 February 2018.
7.Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble High Court 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, 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 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 "?
These Revenue’s twin cases emanate from the learned departmental authorities’ common search action dated 18.10.2019 carried out in M/s. Alankit Group of cases and its associates leading to initiation of proceedings in both the cases on 16.09.2022 u/s 153C of the Act, which culminated in the corresponding section 153C assessments framed in the assessee’s hands and quashed in the learned CIT(A)’s identical detailed discussion in light of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd (supra).
It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue’s common/identical ground/argument herein is that going by the relevant date of search i.e. 18.10.2019, none of the impugned assessment years falls beyond the statutory period of maximum ten assessment years as per section 153A(1) read with the 2nd proviso thereto.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s instant identical legal ground in these twin appeals and find no merit therein. We wish to emphasize here that various recent judicial precedents CIT-7 Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del) and PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd., (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh, 458 ITR 437 (SC) have settled the issue in light of section 153C(1) 1st proviso that we ought to go by the date of receiving of the concerned seized material by the assessee’s jurisdictional Assessing Officer only. There is further no denial to the clinching fact that the learned CIT(A) has gone by the very precise dates to conclude that none of the assessment years involved in the assessee’s cases falls within the specified period of “relevant assessment year or years” i.e. ten assessment years; as the case may be, u/s 153A(1) r.w. the 2nd proviso thereto.
Faced with this situation, learned CIT(DR) vehemently submits that the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition “SLP” against Ojjus Medicare (supra) is pending before the hon’ble apex court. We are of the considered view that mere pendency of SLP is no ground to adopt a different approach against binding decision of hon’ble jurisdictional high court. We thus uphold that the learned CIT(A)’s identical lower appellate discussion quashing the impugned section 153C assessments in both these cases in very terms.
All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.
These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA Nos.3796 & 3797/Del/2026 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.