TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1080
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment without appreciating the specific and cogent material seized during the course of search and duly referred in the satisfaction note. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the satisfaction note as invalid merely because it was consolidated for multiple years, ignoring the fact that the same set of seized documents pertained to several assessment years and hence a single note was both appropriate and legally permissible. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the seized material, including e-mails and Excel Sheets specifically belonged to the assessee, clearly evidencing unrecorded financial transactions. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the detailed reasoning and findings recorded by the AO based on incriminating digital evidence duly corroborated with the assessee's bank transactions. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that approval u/s 153D was duly obtained before passing the assessment order, and therefore all procedural requirements were fully complied with." 2. At the time of hearing, ld. DR of the Revenue brought to our notice the detailed facts of the case and heavily r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gital evidence (emails/Excel) The CIT (A) ignored detailed reasoning and findings of the AO based on incriminating digital evidence duly corroborated by bank transactions. 7 Procedural Compliance : Validity of section 154D approval The Revenue asserts that all procedural requirements including the mandatory approval u/s 153D, were fully complied with before passing the assessment order. PART III: ARGUMENTS OF THE REVENUE TO DEFEND THE ADDITIONS 1. On the Validity of the Consolidated Satisfaction Note (Against Ground 4) * The CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment based solely on the "'consolidated" nature of the satisfaction note. The Revenue contends that where the incriminating material (in this case, a specific email dated Aug 24, 2015, with 5 Excel attachments) contains data spanning several years, a single consolidated note is both logical and legally sufficient. * Legal Position: While the CIT(A) relied on Signature Global India Ltd., the Revenue distinguishes this by emphasizing that the AO in the present case clearly identified the specific email (Annexure A- 5) and its relevance to the assessee's undisclosed cash tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reproduced below for the sake of brevity :- "Date of Search in the case of SMC Global Securities Ltd: - 20/07/2018 Date of Satisfaction note recorded in the case of the appellant: - 16/08/2022 1. Invalid proceedings u/s 153C As per the assessment order, Search & Seizure Operation u/s 132 was conducted on 10/07/2018 in SMC Global Securities Ltd. Satisfaction note u/s 153C is stated to be recorded in the case of the assessee on 16/08/2022. The assessment proceeding-initiated u/s 153C in this case is bad in law and without jurisdiction. It is most respectfully submitted that the powers of the Assessing Officer under Section 153C cannot be invoked in a light, whimsical and arbitrary manner and without complying with the basic pre-requisites specified under Section 153C of the Act. The object underlying the provisions of Section 153C is not to give unbridled power to the Assessing Officer to proceed against any person without reaching satisfaction in an objective manner based on cogent material seized at the time of search. The satisfaction note is the foundation of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C. In the absence of valid satisfaction, jurisdictio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Whether 'Loose Sheets' and 'Diary' have any evidentiary value? - HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal [2024 (2) TMI 116 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held notices issued u/s 153C of the Act, based on the loose sheets/diaries are contrary to law, which require to be set aside in these writ appeals, as the same are void and illegal. As satisfaction note is required to be recorded u/s 153C for each Assessment Year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different Assessment Years, which also vitiates the entire assessment proceedings. In view of all these findings, it is said that the appeals do not have any substance for seeking intervention as sought for by the appellant / Revenue. As per the Panchanama provided herein, it is deemed appropriate to conclude that the notice provided u/s 153C is bad in law. Special Leave Petition is dismissed.. (Refer page no. 33 of the case law compilation) 1.4 In the case of Rajender Rameshlal Gugale vs. PCIT (Central), Pune, 2025 (1) TMI 240 - ITAT Pune it was held as und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TAT rightly permitted this additional ground to be raised and correctly dealt with the same ground on merits as well. Order of the High Court affirming this view of the Tribunal is, therefore, without any blemish. Before us, it was argued by the respondent that notice in respect of the Assessment Years 2000- 01 and 2001-02 was time barred. However, in view of our aforementioned findings, it is not necessary to enter into this controversy.. In the present case before your honour, no such year wise analysis has been done. 1.6 The head note of decision in the case of ITO Vs. Saksham Commodities Ltd., 2024 (12) TMI 1068 - SC Order is as under: - Proceedings u/s 153C - issuance of the notice was preceded by the drawl of a Satisfaction Note by the jurisdictional AO - Distinction between Section 153A and Section 153C - Period of limitation - Nature of the incriminating material that may be obtained and the years forming part of the block which would merit being thrown open As decided by HC [2024 (4) TMI 461 - DELHI HIGH COURT] abatement of the six AYs' or the "relevant assessment year" would follow the formation of that opinion and satisfaction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT CC - 15, 2024 (12) TMI 384 - ITAT Delhi 1.11 In the case of Super Bazar Stores Pvt. Ltd. C/ORadheyshyam Sharma & Co., Ca Versus ACIT, Central Circle-6 Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi 2025 (4) TMI 1130 - ITAT Delhi 1.12 In the case of MSN Institute Of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd., M/S. Prathima Resorts & Restaurants Pvt. Ltd., M/S. Prathima Eggset Private Limited., M/S. Spark Vidyut Pvt. Ltd. Versus The PCIT- (Central), Hyderabad. 2025 (4) TMI 599 - ITAT Hyderabad 1.13 In the case of Sarvo Technologies Ltd. Versus The DCIT Central Circle - 19, ITA No. 1719/DEL/2025- ITAT Delhi 1.14 In the case of Rakesh Trisal v. The DCIT- Central Circle - 27, 2026 (3) TMI 66 - ITAT Delhi 2. That notice issued u/s 153C by the A.O. is without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. Date of Search in the case of SMC Global Securities Ltd: - 20/07/2018 Date of Satisfaction note recorded in the case of the appellant: - 16/08/2022 The assessing officer has issued notice u/s 153C for 7 years from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2019-20 based on date of search. It is now a settled law that for initiating the proceedings u/s 153C ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ote in the present case, we find that the Assessing Officer has recorded a common satisfaction note for multiple assessment years without making any distinction or identifying any specific incriminating material for each year within the Block Period. There is no reference to any document or evidence demonstrating undisclosed income for the year under consideration. The satisfaction note does not contain any quantification or even a prima facie analysis of alleged undisclosed income and appears to have been recorded in a mechanical manner. We are of the view that such a generalized and omnibus satisfaction clearly reflects non-application of mind and fails to meet the statutory requirement of section 153C of the Act. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (397 ITR 344) has categorically held that existence of incriminating material qua each assessment year is sine qua non for valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. ITO [2024] 464 ITR 1 (Delhi) has distinctly held that the satisfaction recorded must be specific and must clearly indicate the incriminating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of jurisdiction u/s 153C is invalid and unsustainable in law and accordingly, the notice issued u/s 153C and the consequent assessment order is hereby quashed. The Ground No. 1(b) and 1(c) are allowed. 11. As the assessment order has been quashed on the legal ground of jurisdiction, the other legal grounds as well grounds on merits of the addition are not required to be adjudicated and kept open. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 4th day of June, 2026. ============= Document 1 Reasons for satisfaction required for initiating the proceedings w/s 153C of the Income tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') in the case of M/s Indeed Fincap Private Limited (formerly known as M/s Charles India Private Limited), PAN: AABCC0116H, having registered address located at Address: Unit No. 1302, 13" Floor, Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi (for the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018-19 and 2019-20) A search and seizure operation action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the cases of M/s SMC Global Securities Limited and related entities of group cases on 20.07.2018. 2....