Sudhir Kumar Gupta vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Ghaziabad

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

These assessee/appellant’s five appeals ITA Nos. 7952 to 7956/Del/2025; for assessment years 2015-16 to 2019-20, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-3 [in short, “CIT(A)”], Noida’s DINs & Order No(s). ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1080447744(1), all dated 08.09.2025, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

It next transpires from a combined perusal of all these case files that the assessee/appellant herein canvasses his first and foremost legal ground/argument challenging validity of these five section 153C assessments framed by the learned Assessing Officer on 23.03.2024 for want of a valid satisfaction. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the assessee’s all five cases have emanated from the learned departmental authorities’ search action dated 18.10.2019 carried out in M/s Alankit Group of cases. And that the learned Assessing Officer of the said searched party recorded his former round of satisfaction nowhere making it clear as to whether the corresponding seized/ incriminating material in the nature of various documents in fact belonged or pertained or related to the assessee. We further emphasize here that the assessee’s learned Assessing Officer thereafter recorded his latter round of satisfaction on 23.08.2023 in his case which followed section 153C notice issued on 30.09.2023 finally culminating in the impugned assessments framed in its case as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

It is in this factual backdrop that we now advert to the assessee’s instant first and foremost legal contention. Learned counsel has placed on record the searched parties’ Assessing Officers’ section 153C satisfaction before us placed nowhere indicates in explicit terms as to whether the assessee’s case was covered under section 153C(1)(a) or (b); nowhere, incorporating the clinching statutory expressions “belong to or belong to” or “pertain to or pertains to” or “relate to or relates to”, as the case may be. Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that such a non-compliance of the foregoing statutory condition in recording of section 153C satisfaction at the learned Assessing Officer’s behest is indeed fatal to the validity of assessment itself going by the stricter interpretation as per Commissioner vs Dilip Kumar and Company (2018) 9 SCC 1(SC) (FB). We accordingly reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned section 153C assessment and quash all these five assessments framed in the assessee’s case fir want of a valid section 153C statisfaction in very terms.

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

These assessee’s five appeals ITA Nos. 7952 to 7956/Del/2025 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.