AMAR NATH GUPTA & SON,DELHI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, DELHI

ITA 6425/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Amar Nath Gupta & Sons appealing against the reassessment order passed by the DCIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi, for the assessment year 2019-20. The reassessment was based on documents seized during a search operation on the Sushen Mohan Gupta group, which included the present assessee. The primary legal contention was the validity of the jurisdiction assumed under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the appellants argued was initiated beyond the permissible time frame. The Tribunal examined the timelines and procedures followed in the reassessment, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in the Calcutta Knitwears case and the subsequent CBDT circular.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841020 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income-tax - vs. Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 362 ITR 673(SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV KAUSHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 ITA No.6425/Del/2025 Amar Nath Gupta & Sons (AY: 2019-20) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6425/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Amar Nath Gupta & Son 1526/1 Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk Delhi – 110006 & A-113, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110025 Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-15 New Delhi \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAAHA3320H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Sh. Ayush Garg, CA Respondent by : Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 09.09.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal-26, Delhi, Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA No.6425/Del/2025 Amar Nath Gupta & Sons (AY: 2019-20) (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1080473966(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 28.02.2025 u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the DCIT, CC-15, Delhi, for AY: 2019-20. 2. On hearing both sides we find that ld. Counsel has primarily stressed for disposal of ground No. 5 by way of which assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C have been challenged. As for convenience we reproduce ground No. 4 below: “4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings under section 153C initiated against the assessee are beyond the permissible period as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax - vs. Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 362 ITR 673(SC) dated 12.03.2014 and accepted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No. 24/2015 dated 31.12.2015.” 3. We find that during the hearing ld. AR has placed on record at page No. 55-70 the copy of assessment u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act concluded on 30.09.2021 in the case of Sushen Mohan Gupta. Now admittedly search and seizure operation was conducted on 02.01.2020 and subsequent dates on Sushen Mohan Gupta & others group of cases at different business and Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA No.6425/Del/2025 Amar Nath Gupta & Sons (AY: 2019-20) residential premises of the group and the case of present assessee was also reopened as part of the search proceedings. 4. In this context, in para 2 of the assessment order of the present assessee it is recorded that Dheeraj Dhar Gupta and Shri Dhar Gupta were subjected to search as part of Sushen Mohan Gupta and others on 02.01.2020 and during the course of same incriminating documents were found which became subject to all the additions. 5. Now at page No. 30-33 copy of satisfaction recorded in the case of assessee is provided wherein name of the group search is mentioned as Sushen Mohan Gupta and others and date of search is mentioned as 02.01.2020. Name and address of the other person to whom seized assets/papers belong is mentioned of present assessee. This satisfaction note is recorded on 20.03.2024 by the AO of present assessee. 6. Then at page No. 25-29 satisfaction note recorded by the AO searched person on 08.03.2023 is provided wherein name of the group search is mentioned as Sushen Mohan Gupta and others and date of search is mentioned as 02.01.2020. Name and address of the other person to whom seized assets/papers belong is mentioned of present assessee. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA No.6425/Del/2025 Amar Nath Gupta & Sons (AY: 2019-20) 7. Thus, it is quite apparent that while assessment in case of Sushen Mohan Gupta was concluded on 30.09.2021 who happened to be the searched person the satisfaction note by the AO on searched person and the satisfaction note by the AO of assessee, both, have been recorded subsequent to the conclusion of assessment in the case of searched person on 03.09.2021. 8. In this context, ld. Counsel has drawn our attention to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-III Vs. M/s Calcutta Knitwears Ludhiana (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC), dated 12.03.2014 which has been also considered for issuing instructions by CBDT vide Circular No. 24/2015 date 31.12.2015 and the same provide that there has to be reasonable time for recording satisfaction and in any case the same cannot be beyond the period of 4 months from the conclusion of assessment in the case of searched person. Ld. DR has failed to cite any legal proposition to the contrary. In the light of aforesaid, we are inclined to sustain the ground as raised. 9. Pertinent is to mention is that this bench vide order of even date has considered similar facts incase of two other assessee, Navneet Gupta & Sons ITA 6516/Del/2025 and Rajan Gupta & Sons ITA 6517/Del/2025, and quashed the orders. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5 ITA No.6425/Del/2025 Amar Nath Gupta & Sons (AY: 2019-20) 10. In the light of aforesaid circumstances the assumption of jurisdiction by way of issuance of notice itself is vitiated. Consequently, we are inclined to sustain ground No. 5. The appeal is allowed and the impugned reassessment order is quashed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.02.2026 Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) Sd/- (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 27.02.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "