Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2025) 10 ITAT CK 2626

Kamaladityya Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi · Decided on 8 October 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member · Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA No. 829/Del/2025, ITA No. 830/Del/2025 & ITA No. 831/Del/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 704 words

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

These assessee’s three appeals in ITA Nos. 829, 830 & 831/Del/2025 for Assessme nt Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 arise against the C IT( A)-30, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1071411822(1), 1071412015(1) & 1071412233(1) all dated 20.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.

2.

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

3.

A combined perusal of the assessee’s instant three case files indicates that it has raised the first and for emost ground of validity of the impugned sectio n 153C r.w .s. 143(3) assessments itself; all framed on 13.03.2023. We make it clear that the search action herein had been carried out by the learned departmental authorities on 26.10.2020 in M/s Sanjay Jain and Mehta group of cases. Learned CIT- DR seeks to explain the fact that the assessee here in was regularly assessed at Dhanbad, Jharkhand. And that it was in light of the said search that it’s case w as centralized on 18 .03.2021 with the Central Circle-30, New Delhi. This followed the learned departmental authorities’ informatio n from Ce ntral Cir cle-30, New Delhi sent to the assessee’s Assessing Officer at Dhanbad on 05.08.2022; who , inturn, reco rded his satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act to issue the corresponding notice dated 08.09.2022. We further note that the PCIT , Dhanbad thereafter passed his section 127 order dated 16.11.20 22 transferring the assessee’s assessment jur isdiction to New Delhi in the forego ing terms. All this admittedly culminated in the impugned assessment framed in assessee’s case by the learned DC IT, Central C ircle-30, New Delhi as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.1

This is what le aves the assessee aggrieved who has raised it’s first and foremost sub stantive ground that the impugned assessments have not been framed in pursuance to a valid satisfaction u/ s 153C of the Act.

4.

That being the case, we granted ample opportunity to the department to place on record the former satisfaction re corded in the assessee’s case by the Assessing Officer of the searched person hereinabove. Learned C IT-DR has produced a copy thereof recording the following alleged satisfaction:

“A l et ter dated 0 5.08.2022 from the O/o DCIT, C entral Circle -3, New D el hi has b een rece ived on 25.08.2022 stati ng the rei n that a search and seiz ur e proc eedi ngs under sectio n 132 of IT Ac t was conduc ted o n a entry ope rator Sa njay Jain alo ng wi th his facilitators a nd so me of his beneficiarie s who were found to be generati ng cas h against bo gus billing of cement a nd other s uc h items on 26.10.2020. It has bee n obs erved that the M/s Kamaladityya Construction P vt. ltd. PAN-AADCK8525G has made unaccounted cash trans action/accommodati on entri es pertaini ng to various c ompani es concer n/i ndi vidual which wer e found to be r elated to Sanjay Jai n & Me hta.”

5.

Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that the above extracted satisfactio n nowhere clarifies as to whether the same had been r ecorded in tune with section 153C(1)(a)(b) of the Act that the correspond ing se ized material either belonged to or pertained to or related to the assessee as per Prashant Premchand Bafana Vs. ACIT [TS-4 62-IT AT-2025 (PUN) (TM)] and Saksham Commo dities Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 161 taxmann.co m 48 5 (Del.)

6.

We accordingly are of the considered view that the impugned all three assessme nts are non-est in the eyes of law since lacking the learned Assessing Officer’s section 153C valid satisfaction recorded therein. The Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions in support thereo f are hereby rejected. The assessee succeeds in it’s instant first and foremost substantive ground therefore.

7.

All other pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered acade mic.

8.

These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos. 829, 830 & 831/Del/2025 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.