Raj Kumar vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13/12/2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-30, Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 28/12/2022 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2021-22.

A search and seizure operation was conducted under Section 132 of the Act on 26.10.2020 in the case of Sanjay Jain and Mehta Group at various residential and business premises and certain documents were seized from the searched person belong to the Assessee. The satisfaction was recorded by the Ld. AO of the searchedperson examining the contents of the seized documents and the case was centralized with Central Circle-30, New Delhi on 13.12.2022 by an order passed by the Ld. PCIT, Delhi-12, New Delhi. Thereafter, notice under Section 143(2) dated 29.06.2022 followed by notice under Section 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued to the Assessee. The reassessment proceeding was culminated into the order of addition against the assessee which was further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us.

It is the case of the Assessee that the satisfaction was recorded by the Ld. AO of the Assessee on 11.05.2022 which is falling in the F.Y 2022-23 relevant to A.Y 2023-24.As per first proviso to Section 153C (1) the date of search would be the date of satisfaction recorded by the Ld. AO of the Assessee upon receiving the books of account or other documents or assets seized or requestioned from the Ld. AO of the persons searched. In this case, the Ld. AO of the assessee recorded satisfaction on 11.05.2022 and thus, will fall under A.Y 2023-24.

As the date of search is as per Section 153C(1) of the Actis 11.05.2022 and accordingly the search year was A.Y 2023-24 relevant to previous year 2022-23 and six preceding years for which the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act could be initiated were A.Y 2017-18 to 2022-23. Thus, the assessment year in appeal for A.Y 2021-22 is falling in the block period and therefore, any order could passed only was under Section 153C of the Act and not under Section 143(3) as has been done in the case in hand. In that view of the matter, the assessment for the year under consideration is without jurisdiction and thus, liable to be quashed.

The Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below.

In this regard, we have considered the Judgment relied upon by the Ld. AR passed in the matter of Jasjit Singh by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 2023 (10) TMI 572 and the Judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Asha Gupta Vs. DCIT, Central Circle 30, Delhi dated 6^th February, 2026 wherein under the identical facts and circumstances of the matter, the reassessment proceeding was found to be bad law and, therefore, quashed and respectfully relying upon the same we, thus, quash the assessment order as without jurisdiction.

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21/09/2026.