AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP :
This appeal by the Assessee is emanating from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals-25), New Delhi in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-29/10821/2016-17 dated 21.11.2025, arising out of the assessment order dated 31.3.2024 passed u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred the Act) relating to assessment year 2017-18.
The Assessee has raised as many as 17 grounds of appeal, however, he only argued the legal ground no. 1 which read as under:
“That the notice issued and the assessment order passed u/s. 153C of the Act by the AO are fundamentally flawed, being without jurisdiction, barred by limitation and passed in violation of statutory framework governing such proceedings, thereby rendering them legally unsustainable.”
Brief facts of the case are that the original return of income was filed, by the assessee on 2.8.2017 declaring income of Rs. 4,14,280/-. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out on 18.10.2019 on the Alankit Group, Sh. Alok K. Agarwal, his son Ankit Agarwal and some of the close associates and key employees of Sh. Alok K Agarwal. Other premises and residential accommodation of the key persons of the Alankit Group and related persons were also covered in this search operation. On perusal of the seized data/ documents it was found that certain documents and information contained therein pertains to the assessee Ms. Srishti Goel. Thereafter, assessment was completed u/s. 153C of the Act with an addition of Rs. 35,88,840/-. Against the above, assessee appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 21.11.2025 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
At the time of hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the legal issue involved in the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2016-17 decided in WP(C) 1796/2024 dated 8.8.2024 wherein, the Hon’ble Court has allowed the writ petition of the assessee by quashing the notice u/s. 153C dated 3.11.2022, by following its decision in the case of PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Private Limited [2024 SCC Online Del 2439). It is further submitted that the instant assessment year is 2017-18 which fall beyond the window of six preceding assessment years as provided u/s.153C of the Act and the aggregate amount in the relevant assessment year does not exceed the prescribed limit. It was further submitted that the facts involved in the present assessment year are similar to that of facts of AY 2016-17, hence, respectfully following the ratio of the same, the present appeal may also be allowed.
The Ld. DR relied the order of the AO. She submitted that the case is not covered from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court passed in the Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd. (Supra)
We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. We find that notice u/s. 153C was issued on 3.11.2022 i.e. AY 2023-24 and satisfaction note recorded by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is dated 6.1.2024. It is noted that the instant assessment year is 2017-18 which fall beyond the window of six preceding assessment years as provided u/s.153C of the Act and the aggregate amount in the relevant assessment year does not exceed the prescribed limit. We note that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of the assessee for the preceding assessment year viz. 2016-17 has dealt the similar issue on exactly on identical fact favour of assessee in assessee’s own case by observing as under:-
“2.Bearing in mind the undisputed fact that the notice under Section 153C is dated 03 November 2022, it is ex facie evident that the aforenoted AY would fall beyond the window of six preceding AYs' as provided under Section 153C. It is manifest from an ex facie perusal of the Satisfaction Note recorded by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer [“AO"] dated 06 January 2024 that the income which is alleged to have escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year" does not exceed INR 50 lakhs. The Jurisdictional AO has also failed to record its satisfaction that the escaped income for the "relevant assessment year”, and which would necessarily stretch to the block of 10 AYs’, is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs and thereby fulfilling the threshold requirement as prescribed by the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A. 3. We find that the aforesaid aspects were duly considered by us while rendering judement in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central - 1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd [2024 SCC Online Del 2439]. We deem it apposite to extract the following paragraphs of the aforesaid decision hereinbelow:-
"G. Insofar as the thresholds put in place by virtue of the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A are concerned and the argument of the writ petitioners of the condition of INR 50 lakhs being an unwavering precondition, we find ourselves unable to sustain that submission bearing in mind the indubitable fact that proceedings for search assessment commence upon the issuance of a notice and the AO at that stage having really not had the occasion to undertake a detailed or in depth examination of the evidence collected or come to a definitive opinion with respect to the total income which may have escaped assessment. Since the computation and assessment of income that is likely to have escaped assessment would at this stage be provisional, it would be incorrect to strike down initiation of action on a mere ex facie examination of the Satisfaction Note. We also in this regard bear in mind the Fourth Proviso using the expression “amounts to or is likely to amount, The usage of the phrase "likely to'" is indicative of the Legislature being conscious of the provisional character of the opinion that the AO may have formed at that stage.
H. However, and at the same time, even if the identified asset at that stage be quantified as less than INR 50 lakhs, the AO must for reasons to be duly recorded, be of the opinion that the ultimate computation of escaped income is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs. The aforesaid satisfaction would have to be based on an assessment of the material gathered and the potentiality of the same being indicative of the escaped assessment exceeding INR 50 lakhs. The formation of opinion in this respect would have to be based not on mere ipse dixit but reflective of a fair assessment of the quantum of income likely to have escaped assessment as distinct from mere speculation and conjecture.
I. We further hold that since the precondition of INR 50 lakhs or more constitutes a sine qua non for initiating action for the extended ten year block, the aforesaid satisfaction and the reasons in support thereof would have to borne out from the Satisfaction Note itself. We are also of the opinion that the precondition of INR 50 lakhs is not liable to be viewed as being the qualifying criteria for each relevant assessment year" that may be thrown open and that the said condition would stand satisfied if the escaped income cumulatively or in the aggregate meets the minimum benchmark of said INR 50 lakhs."
4.Accordingly, and for reasons assigned in our decision in Oijus Medicare Private Limited, while we allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned notice issued under Section 153C of the Act dated 03 November 2022 insofar as it relates to AY 2016-17, we leave it open to the jurisdictional AO to examine the issue afresh bearing in mind the observations appearing in Para 3 above. 5. In case the Jurisdictional AO be of the opinion that the income alleged to have escaped assessment is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs in the "relevant assessment year", it would be open to it to draw proceedings afresh, if otherwise permissible in law.”
On perusal of the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble High Court in assessee’s own case, we are of the considered view the instant case is fully covered by the aforesaid decision relevant to assessment year 2016-17, as aforesaid, hence, respectfully following the aforesaid ratio of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case, we allow the legal ground raised by the assessee by quashing the impugned notice issued u/s. 153C of the Act dated 3.11.2022 and consequent assessment. Since we have already quashed the notice as well as consequent assessment, as aforesaid, the other grounds have become academic.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.