Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 02 ITAT CK 4100

Sh. Rahul Bansal (HUF) vs ACIT

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi · Decided on 4 February 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member · Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA Nos.5541, 5542 & 5543/Del/2025

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

7 paragraphs · 321 words

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos.5541, 5542 & 5543/Del/2025 for assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Gurgaon’s orders, all dated 08.08.2025 passed in case nos. 3/11505/2015-16/11894/2016-17/10784/2017-18; involving proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

We notice at the outset that the assessee has raised its identical first and foremost legal ground challenging validity of the impugned section 153C assessments, all dated 30.03.2023 for the reason that the same are not based on any incriminating material found/seized during the course of search which forms a mandatory condition going by PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC).

3.

That being the case, learned counsel representing assessee straightway takes us to the Assessing Officer’s section 153C satisfaction herein inter alia revealing that the search in question stood carried out on 25.02.2021 in M/s. Lifeline Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Kundu group of cases. This clinching satisfaction note at page 84 recorded under section 153C of the Act indicates in para 3.2 that it was “during post search proceedings” only that the assessee’s karta Sh. Kamal Bansal made some alleged admission(s) that it had derived some bogus capital gains. We notice in this factual backdrop that all these three impugned assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19 are “unabated” assessments not based on any incriminating material pinpointed by the learned lower authorities. We accordingly quash all these impugned section 153C assessments in light of their lordships’ decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The assessee succeeds in its instant first and foremost legal ground therefore.

All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.

4.

These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos.5541, 5542 & 5543/Del/2025 are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.