TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.2017 disclosing total income of Rs. 7,05,770/- being the share income from partnership firm and income from other sources. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was carried out on 19.12.2017 at the residential premises of Mr. Baburao Dattareya Chandere at 1053, Gokhale Cross Road, Matruda Building, Shivajinagar, Pune during which incriminating material belonging to the assessee was seized. The satisfaction as required u/s 153C of the Act by the Assessing Officer of the searched person was recorded on 09.12.2020. Thereafter, another satisfaction was recorded on 16.10.2020 by the Assessing Officer of the assessee and accordingly a notice u/s 153C of the Act dated 19.10.2020 for the assessment year 2016-17 was issued and duly served on the assessee calling for the return of income within 30 days from the service of the said notice. The assessee in response to the same filed his return of income on 11.11.2020 disclosing total income of Rs. 9,79,410/- being the share income from partnership firm and income from other sources. The assessee also requested the Assessing Officer to give the details of the searched person in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the issue of mandatory allocation of DIN, the Hon'ble Apex Court vide their order dated 03.01.2024 has stayed the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's observation on Mandatory Allocation of "DIN" while Communicating Notice, Order, and Summons, without appreciating that the issue involved in the case of the appellant relates to DIN on approval granted by Additional CIT and not to DIN on the assessment order. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing appellant's appeal and confirming the action of the AO without appreciating that notice U/Sec. 153C of the Act and the assessment order passed U/Sec.153C of the Act is bad in law as no incriminating evidence has been found relating to this year in the course of search and nowhere in the satisfaction note it is remarked that the documents found are incriminating in nature. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the appellant has not filed the return of income in this year only after the issue of notice U/Sec.153C of the Act and has instead rectified the short-term capital loss shown in original return of income. 5. The learned CIT(A) has further erred in dismissing appellant'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion note by the Assessing Officer of the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19 dated 16.10.2020, copy of which is placed at pages 24 to 27 of the paper book, he submitted that here also the Assessing Officer has recorded a common satisfaction note for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the assessment order is bad in law if a consolidated satisfaction note is recorded u/s 153C of the Act for all the assessment years: i) CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) 165 taxmann.com 846 (SC) ii) DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) 159 taxmann.com 179 (Kar) iii) Saksham Commodities Ltd vs. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1 (Del) iv) Shri Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale vs. PCIT vide ITA No.1676/PUN/2024 order dated 30.12.2024 for assessment year 2017-18. v) Rameshbhai Harlilal Patel vs. ACIT vide IT(SS)A Nos.6 & 7/PUN/2025 order dated 12.09.2025 for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 vi) Chitra Narendra Parmar vs. ACIT & batch of appeals with lead case vide ITA No.1262/PUN/2024 order dated 14.07.2025 for assessment year 2016-17 vii) ACIT vs. Subhash Jivraj Jain vide ITA No.1690/PUN/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice u/s 153C of the Act filed his return of income on 11.11.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 9,79,410/- as against the income declared in the original return at Rs. 7,05,770/-. The assessee in the return filed in response to the notice u/s 153C of the Act has disclosed short term capital gain on sale of flat at Pride Platinum amounting to Rs. 2,73,638/-. Although the Assessing Officer has accepted the income declared in the return filed in response to the notice u/s 153C of the Act, however, he initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income. We find before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee apart from challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, challenged the validity of the assessment u/s 153C of the Act which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that since the Assessing Officer of the searched person as well as the Assessing Officer of the assessee have recorded a combined satisfaction note for assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19, therefore, such satisfaction note being not in accordance with law, the entire 153C proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....24 has quashed the assessment proceedings by observing as under: "8.7. Since in the instant case a consolidated satisfaction note has been prepared for assessment years 2012-2013 to 2018-2019, therefore, the consolidation satisfaction note being not in accordance with law, therefore, the entire assessment proceedings is liable to be quashed. We hold accordingly and quash the assessment." 62. So far as the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian National Congress vs. DCIT (supra) relied on by Ld. DR is concerned, we find no doubt there is a favourable decision in favour of the Revenue on the issue of combined satisfaction. However, it has been held in various decisions that when there are two views possible on an issue and there is no decision of the jurisdictional High Court on that issue, then the view which is favourable to the assessee has to be adopted. Even the Ld. DR in his written submissions has cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 236 (SC) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court at page 240 has observed as under: "If a provision of a taxing statute can ....