AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s order dated 11.09.2025 passed in case no. CIT(A), Delhi-24/10196/2013-14, involving proceedings under section 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
2 It next transpires with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the assessee’s instant appeal raises first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned section 153C r.w.s. 144 assessment itself making section 69 unexplained on-money investment addition amount to Rs.11,61,818/-; which stands upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
We now advert to the basic relevant facts:
There is hardly any dispute that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in issue in the builders/developers cases on 29.05.2018. This followed the said searched parties’ Assessing Officer’s satisfaction recorded on 31.05.2021 which followed the assessee’s Assessing Officer latter round of satisfaction leading to initiation of section 153C proceedings on 29.09.2021 finally culminating in the assessment in question herein in making the impugned addition.
Faced with this situation, learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues that we ought to uphold the impugned assessment as very much validly framed by both the lower authorities. The fact however remains that going by section 153C(1) 1st proviso, the date of satisfaction recorded in such an instance happens to be the date of search itself which is 27/29.09.2021 in the assessee’s case. And that by counting the impugned assessment year 2014-15 backwards, the same very well comes to beyond the period of six assessment years wherein any such process could be initiated only if the undisclosed income is likely to be Rs.50 lakhs or more; as held in CIT-7 Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del), PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd., (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh (2024) 465 ITR 101 (SC). We reiterate that both the learned lower authorities have added the assessee’s alleged on-money payments of Rs.11.61 lakhs only (supra).
That being the case, we are of the considered view that both the learned lower authorities’ action framing the impugned section 153C assessment in the assessee’s case is not liable to be sustained being non-est one in the eyes of law. Quashed in very terms therefore.
All remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.