M/s MMR Infrastructure Developers Private Ltd. & Anr. vs DCIT, Central Circle-6, Delhi

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

These appeals preferred by the different Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-24,New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under:-

Heard and perused The cases of these two assesse which is part of same group were heard together and as they involves similar question of facts and law and the same are being adjudicated together and wherever relevant facts of ITA No. 1741/Del/2026 in the case of M/s MMR Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. shall referred.

In the present cases proceedings u/s 153C of the Act have been initiated pursuant to search conducted on 22.10.2016 in the case of Ashish Begwani group based on the satisfaction note date 24.03.2021 as reproduced in the assessment orders. The case of ld. Counsel for assesse is that the same satisfaction note which is given for multiple assessment year is a consolidated satisfaction note and has been subject of judicial scrutiny by Coordinate Benches and the same has been held to be not in accordance with law.

Though ld. DR submitted that satisfaction note is complete in all receipts and only prima facie facts have to be mentioned and there is no requirement of discussion of all the incriminating material. We find from the satisfaction note as reproduced in the assessment order that the satisfaction note mentions that for Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2017-18 jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act is assumed and as with regard to alleged incriminating evidences the assessing officer observes that the same were as follows:

On thorough examination of the satisfaction note it is apparent that the content of excel sheet have not been reproduced or its substance mentioned to show as to how the satisfaction was recorded with regard to these material having bearing on the determination of the total income of the assesse for the years under consideration for which the jurisdiction u/s 153C has been invoked. It is settled that satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act must be recorded with reference to each assessment year on the basis of incriminating material having bearing on the determination of the total income of that assessment year, failing which the assumption of jurisdiction is unsustainable and reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Saksham Commodities Limited & Others Vs. ITO &Anr. 2024 (4) TMI 461 (Delhi HC) dated 09.04.2024. Ld. Counsel has also drawn our attention to decision in the case Parsee Leasing and Finvest Limited Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 3556/Del/2025, dated 25.03.2026; ITAT Delhi in Sunwhite Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CC-6, ITA No. 9135/Del/2025, dated 30.06.2026; ITAT Delhi in Vinay Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT CC-6, New Delhi, ITA No. 2459/Del/2025, dated 06.02.2026 & ITAT Delhi in KuldeepSaluja Vs. DCIT, CC-6, New Delhi, ITA No. 2460/Del/2025, dated 06.02.2026 wherein the same satisfaction note has been subject of judicial scrutiny and the Coordinate Benches have not found the same to be in accordance with law.

In the light of aforesaid we are inclined to allow corresponding grounds The assumption of jurisdiction being vitiated the consequent assessment and the impugned order are liable to be quashed and accordingly appeals are allowed and impugned assessment order are quashed.