TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1775
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Years 2017-18 to 2021-22. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. We take up the assessee's appeal being ITA No.2431/Del/2024 for AY 2015-16 as lead case to adjudicate the issues under consideration. 3. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee pressed Ground No.1 which read as under :- "That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued by the Ld. AO under Section 153C of the Act is bad in law, illegal, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation and thus void ab initio;" 4. With regard to aforesaid ground, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under :- 1. No Notice under se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which the seized material is handed over to the Assessing Officer of the other person, the date of recording of satisfaction. Consequently, where such jurisdictional event occurs after 01.04.2021, proceedings under Section 153C are legally unsustainable. * The aforesaid principle has thereafter been consistently upheld by this Hon'ble Tribunal in Geetanjali Bhayana v. DClT [[2026J ~83 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi - Trib.)], Abhisar Estates {P.} Ltd. v. DClT (ITA No. l033/Del/2025, order dated 10.02.2026), Parvesh Kumar vs. DCIT [2026] 187 taxmann.com 1100 (Delhi - Trib.), Shri Lekh Raj Versus DClT, Central Circle-2, 2026 (5) TMI 600 -ITAT Delhi, and Snivdtwm Buildtech (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT (ITA Nos. 109 to 111/De//2026, order dated 24.06....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on account of the extraordinary and unexplained delay of nearly forty-three months between the date of search (11.08.2020) and the recording of satisfaction (16.03.2024). Such inordinate delay is contrary to the statutory scheme of Section 153C and renders the assumption of jurisdiction void ab initio. * recording of satisfaction is the very foundation for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C. The statutory scheme contemplates that such satisfaction must be recorded contemporaneously with.ior immediately upon, the handing over of the seized material by the Assessing Officer of the searched person to the Assessing Officer of the other person. * The date of search is 11.08.2020 and thus the assessment of Searched ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therwise existed. * The aforesaid principle has been consistently reiterated by various Courts and Tribunals. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Parag Rameshbhai Gathani v. ITO (Common CAV Judgment dated 18.11.2025) quashed proceedings where satisfaction was recorded after a delay of about twenty-two months, holding such delay to be contrary to the ratio laid down in Calcutta Knitwears and CBDT Circular No. 24/2015. SLP stands dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2026 (4) TMI 349 - SC Order. * Likewise, in Pro CIT V. Jitendra H. Modi (HUF) [(2018) 92 taxmann.com 510 (Guj.) : 2018 (2) TMI 673 (Guj.)], the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that satisfaction cannot be recorded after an unreasonable lapse of time an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only on 16.03.2024, the relevant search year for the assessee is AY 2024-25. The provisions applicable for this case is the amended provisions introduced in the Finance Act, 2021. Accordingly, the assessment should have been completed u/s 147 instead of section 153C. The submissions of the assessee has merit, as held by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Harigovind & G. Ravindran (HUF) vs. ACIT (2025) 180 taxmann.com 197 (Madras). The ratio of the decision is, once the jurisdictional event under section 153C occurs after 01.04.2021, proceedings cannot be initiated u/s 153C and must necessarily conform to the substituted provisions. In the present case, no doubt, the search was conducted prior to 01.04.2021 but the satisfaction relevan....