TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1628
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recording mandatory 'satisfaction' in accordance with law and without complying/ following with the other mandatory conditions/ procedure as la id down u/s 153C in accordance with law. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order u/s 153C, is illegal, bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 36,66,880/- by treating it as alleged unexplained money u/s 69A and that too without there being any incriminating material found as a result of search and by recording incorrect facts and findings and without following the principles of natural justice and without confronting the adverse material on record and without providing the opportunity of cross examination. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 36,66,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the reason that the satisfaction recorded by Ld. AO of the searched person and AO of the assessee and the approval u/s 153D does not contain the DIN in the body of the satisfaction note as per the mandate of CBDT circular no. 19/2019 dated 14-08-2019 . 11. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234B and 234D of Income Tax Act. 1961." ITA No. 6625/ Del/ 2025 "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order u/s 153C and that loo without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without recording mandatory "satisfaction" in accordance with law and without complying/ following with the other mandatory conditions/ procedure as la id down u/s 153C in accordance with law. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order u/s 153C is illegal, bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961." ITA No. 6626/Del/2025 "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order u/s 153C and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without recording mandatory "satisfaction" in accordance with law and without comply/ following with the other mandatory conditions/ procedure as la id down u/s 153C in accordance with law. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order u/s 153C is illegal, bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CTT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 14,10,000/- by treating it as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and that loo without there being an) incriminating ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... justice and without confronting the adverse material on record and without providing the opportunity of cross examination. 8. That in am case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Id. AO in making addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- u/s 69A, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 60,000/- on account of alleged commission expenditure by treating it as alleged unexplained expenditure u/s 69C and that too without there being any incriminating material found as a result of search and by recording incorrect facts and findings and without following the principles of natural justice and without confronting the adverse material on record and without providing the opportunity of cross examination. 10. That in any case and without prejudice to the above grounds, additions made in the impugned assessment order are beyond jurisdiction and illegal, also for the reason that such order could not have been made since no incriminating material h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l including the validity of the proceedings u/s 153C for A.Y. 2014-15 on the ground that it falls outside the block of 10 years. Ld. AR has submitted at the outset, that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101(Del.). It has been explained by him that the satisfaction u/s 153C was recorded on 31 .05. 2023 making A.Y. 2024-25 as the relevant assessment year. Thereafter, the ld. AO could have gone back till A.Y. 2015-16 and therefore, the assessment year 2014-15 is out of the block of 10 years. In this regard, the ld. AR has placed reliance on the order of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held as under: "95. The relevant block of ten AYs when computed for the period 01 April 2023-31 March 2024, with the date of the Satisfaction Note drawn by the AO of the non- searched person falling within that period, would come to be identified as under: Computation of the ten-year block period as provided under section 153C read with section 153A of the Act No. of years AY 2024-25 1 AY 2023-24 2 AY....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R has further placed reliance on the decision in the case of Smt. Geetanjali Bhayana Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 2227, 2228 & 2252/Del/2025 order dated 27.10.2026 wherein, in light of decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court the co-ordinate bench has held as under: "16. As per first proviso to Section 153C(1) the date of initiation of search u/s 132 or making requisition u/s 132A in terms of second proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. As observed above, in the present case, the AO of the assessee has recorded the satisfaction on 03.12.2021 after taking the seized material thus the date of search in the case of assessee should be 03.12.2021. This view is supported by the judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare (supra), the headnote reads as under: "Section 153C of the Income- tax Act, 1961-Search and seizure-Assessment of any or person (Block assessment)-Assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 -Whether first proviso to section 153C, and which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to in this sub-section, 153C(1) pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. Therefore, any pending proceedings shall be abated as per the above proviso. 36. On the strength of the above second proviso to Section 153A(1), the respondents had strongly contended that the first proviso to Section 153C is only with regard to the abatement of proceedings and not for anything else. 37. On the other hand, the petitioners had contended that it is not only for abatement but for all the other purposes. According to the petitioner, if a particular date is determined for the purpose of abatement of proceedings, then the same would be applicable for all the purposes, including the date of initiation of proceedings under Section 153C against the other person. 38. Even a reading of Section 153C makes it clear that determination of total income of such other person for 6 assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year, in which the search was conducted or requisition was made and for the relevant assessment year or years, referre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on (1) of Section 153C of the Act, for the purpose of calculating the six years period, the date of handing over of the materials to the petitioner's JAO has to be construed as the date of initiation of search for other person. Further, in terms of first proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 153C, for the purpose of abatement also, the date of handing over of the materials to the petitioner's JAO has to be construed as the date of initiation of search for the other person. In such view of the matter, this Court is unable to comprehend the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondents that, yet another date is available for the purpose of initiation of search in respect of the other person. 44. Certainly, there cannot be two different dates for initiation of search for the other person. Hence, for all practical purpose, the initiation of search would be the same date and it is apparent upon reading the provisions of Section 153C of the Act. In the provision of Section 153C(1) of the Act, the date of initiation of search is mentioned as the date of handing over of materials and as per the first proviso, the same date would apply for the purpose of abatement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the third party, to the concerned AO. In that event if the date would virtually "relate back" as is sought to be contended by the revenue, (to the date of the seizure), the prejudice caused to the third party, who would be drawn into proceedings as it were unwittingly (and in many cases have no concern with it at all), is dis-proportionate. For instance, if the papers are in fact assigned under Section 153C after a period of four years, the third party assessee's prejudice is writ large as it would have to virtually preserve the records for at latest 10 years which is not the requirement in law. Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be attributed to Parliament. On the other hand, a plain reading of Section 153C supports the interpretation which this Court adopts. [Emphasis supplied] 47. A reading of the above shows that the Hon'ble Apex Court had rejected the contention of the respondent and hence, it is clear that the first proviso to Sub- Section (1) of Section 153C is not only for the purpose of abatement but also for all other purposes, viz., initiation of search for other person in terms of Section 153C(3) of the Act. In such case, the date of....