AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PERANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.12.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-23 Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084211517(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 29.03.2023 u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by ACIT, Central Circle -4, New Delhi, for AY: 2020-21.
Heard and perused record. The foremost contention of ld. Counsel for assesse was that the satisfaction note of searched person was not provided to the assesse during the assessment proceedings and that when assesse had sought this relevant information under Right to Information Act, the same was also not provided. Thus it was alleged in absence of such note the assumption of jurisdiction is vitiated.
At the time of hearing or on conclusion thereafter, on behalf of department ld. DR was also unable to file any copy of satisfaction note. Now, recording of satisfaction note by AO of searched person only gives the AO of non-searched person, an opportunity for assumption of jurisdiction for assessment u/s 153C of the Act. Our attention has been drawn to the order date 21.11.2025 vide ITA No. 169 & 170/Del/2025 for AY; 2018-19 wherein Coordinate Bench in the case of assesse has examined this factual and legal aspect and has allowed the appeal of the assesee with following relevant findings:
“5.Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. In this case on perusal of the RTI reply dated 28.01.2025 furnished by the Assessing Officer, we observed that the AO is unable to provide a copy of satisfaction note recorded by the AO of searched person. In the case of PCIT vs. G. Laxmi Aruna the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court affirming the decision of the Tribunal held that recording of satisfaction note by the AO of searched person is prerequisite and the same must be prepared by the AO before he transmits records to other AO who has jurisdiction over such other person u/s 153C and since in the case of the assessee before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, satisfaction note was not recorded by the AO of searched person it was held that the Tribunal had rightly quashed assessment on account of lack of jurisdiction. The SLP filed by the Revenue against this decision in the case of the PCIT vs. G. LaxmiAruna by the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. G. LaxmiAruna (supra). The ratio of the above decisions squarely applies to the facts of the assessee’s case.Thus, respectfully following the above decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT vs. G. LaxmiAruna and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. G. LaxmiAruna (supra), we hold that the assessment made u/s 153C in the case of assessee for the AY 2018-19 is bad in law and without jurisdiction since the satisfaction note was not recorded by the Assessing Officer of searched person. Accordingly, we quash the assessment order passed u/s 153C of the Act for the AY 2018-19. Since we have quashed the assessment on lack of jurisdiction of the AO the other technical grounds raised by the assessee are left open.”
In the light of aforesaid discussion. The appeal of assesse is allowed. The impugned assessment order is quashed.