Mahender Kumar Soni vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

These assessee’s five appeals ITA No. 897 to 901/Del/2026 , for assessment years 2015-16 to 2019-20, respective ly; ar ise against the Principal Co mmissioner of Income T ax (for short, “the CIT(A)”), New Delhi’s orders all dated 11.11.202 5, passe d in Orders No. 10808/2015-15 , 11 157/2015-16, 1 0785/2016-17, 10664/2017-18 & 10749/2018-19, involving proceedings u/s 153Cof the Act.

Heard both the parties. Case files peruse d.

We no tice at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue on legality of the impugned section 153C assessment framed by the learned Assessing Officer on 20.02.2024 in the assessee’s case.

A few re levant facts may be noticed.

There is no dispute between the par ties that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in question on 18 .10.2019 in M/s. Alankit group of cases. The learned Assessing Officer of the said searched party thereafter re corded his satisfactio n o n 21 .06.2022 (page 1 -6) in the paper-boo k that the correspo nding valuable assets found/seized during the cour se of search in fact required initiatio n of section 153C proceedings against the asse ssee i.e. a third person. He forwarded the relevant case records to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer who recorded his latter satisfaction under section 153C on 04.11.2022 w itho ut e ven making e xplicitly clear that the aforesaid seized materials or valuables or assets had “a bearing” in the assessee’s case (page 07-08 in the paper-book).

Faced with this situation, learned CIT(DR) ve hemently argues that we need not adopt such a hyper technical approach once the Asse ssing Officer’s afore said satisfaction had been duly recorded in tune with the procedure prescribed in the statute itself.

All t hese Revenue’s arguments fail to impre ss upon us. We make it clear at the cost of r epetition that the assessee’s Assessing O fficer had nowhere recorded a satisfaction that the valuables/assets in question found/seized during the course of search had any “bear ing” o n determination of the assessee’s total income. C ase law Saksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1 (Delhi)(HC) has already settle d the ver y issue in the asseessee’s favour and against the department to the very effect. We thus quash all the impugned assessments fr amed in assessee’s case in very terms.

All other pleadings/ar guments between the parties stand rendere d acade mic.

These assessee’s five appeals IT A No. 897 to 901/Del/2026 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be place d in the respective case files.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court o n 28.07.2026.