Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 08 ITAT CK 6235

Sahil Garg vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 7 August 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member · Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member
CASE NUMBER
ITA No. 771/Del/2026; ITA No. 772/Del/2026

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

9 paragraphs · 409 words

ORDER

PER BENCH:

These assessee’s twin appeals for assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19, arise against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s orders dated 18.11.2025, passed in DINs & order Nos. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1082709521(1) & ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1082708924(1), involving proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively.

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

We advert to the assessee’s first and foremost legal ground/argument herein challenging validity of the impugned section 153C assessments framed for assessment years A.Y. 2017-18 and 2018-19 itself. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in question in M/s H S Impex & Other Group of cases on 07.12.2018. There is further no quarrel that the learned Assessing Officer i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-02, New Delhi, is common for both the aforesaid searched party as well as the assessee. His satisfaction note dated 11.01.2022 forms part of the case records at pages 19 to 20 in the assessee’s paperbook before us. He has further placed on record the corresponding incriminating material “KPJ-01-A-8” at pages 21 to 30 before us as well.

3.

We notice in this factual backdrop that the learned Assessing Officer had recorded his common section 153C satisfaction for assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20 that the assessee’s receipts in the diaries read the corresponding figures of Rs. 1,62,085/- (for A.Y. 2016-17) & Rs. 13,33,800/- (for A.Y. 2017-18) respectively. A perusal of the aforesaid seized material however indicates that the same nowhere pertain to the impugned twin assessment years i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 before us. Faced with this situation, we quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent decision in Saksham Commodities Limited Saksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1 (Delhi)(HC) that such a common satisfaction note; in absence of any incriminating material for the relevant assessment year, vitiates the impugned proceedings itself; as under:

Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
4.

This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. We accordingly are of the considered view that both these impugned section 153C assessment framed in the assessee’s hands for assessment year 2017-18 & 2018-19 are not sustainable in law. Quashed in very terms therefore.

All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.

5.

These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 771 & 772/Del/2026 are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.