DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, FARIDABAD V. AADYANT EDUCATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

MA 160/DEL/2021

AI Insights

The case involves the revenue's request to recall an earlier Tribunal order on the grounds that revised grounds of appeal were not filed concerning the quashing of proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue argued that the issue was covered by a decision from the Hon'ble Apex Court in Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT. However, the Tribunal noted that the revenue had been granted multiple opportunities to file revised grounds but did not do so, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826408 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT (273 Taxman 556)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURAV JAIN

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.160/DEL/2021 (Arising out of ITA No.3853/Del/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT Central Circle-1 Faridabad Vs Adayant Education Pvt. Ltd., 10-11, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi PAN No.AAHCA3067B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Gaurav Jain, Advocate Sh. Tarun Chanana, Advocate Date of hearing: 12/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 08/01/2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM: Through this miscellaneous applications the revenue is requesting to recall the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.3853/Del/2017 dated 25.03.2021 on the ground that the Printed from counselvise.com revenue did not file revised grounds of appeal and the Ld. CIT(DR) did not inform the AO to file revised grounds of appeal. In the miscellaneous application it was also contended that revised grounds of appeal have to be filed in this case since the issue involved in the instant case is squarely covered by the revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT (273 Taxman 556). 2. On the other hand the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that initially the appeal was heard by the Bench on 20.02.2020 and the appeal was listed for clarification on multiple occasions as narrated by the Tribunal in para-5 of its order. The Ld. DR on 15.01.2021 sought time to file revised grounds of appeal which was allowed by the Tribunal and listed the appeal for hearing on 23.02.2021. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal was heard on 23.03.2021 by the Tribunal and there is no mistake apparent on record in order of the Tribunal so as to recall and rectify a mistake which is apparent on record. 3. Heard rival contentions. We observed that the Tribunal had allowed sufficient time to the revenue to file grounds challenging the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in quashing of proceedings u/s.153C in the absence of any satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the person searched. Though the Tribunal allowed several opportunities to the revenue to file revised grounds, revenue did not file any such grounds and ultimately the Tribunal disposed of appeal deciding the grounds raised by the revenue alongwith Form 36 observing as under : Printed from counselvise.com “5. The record reveal that this appeal was heard by ITAT, Delhi Bench on 20.02.2020 and thereafter fixed for clarification many times. Ultimately on 15.01.2021 the Ld. D.R. sought time to file revised grounds of appeal which was allowed and appeal was released and fixed for hearing on 23.03.2021. The above grounds of appeal clearly show that Revenue has challenged the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 3 crores on merits. No grounds have been raised by the Revenue to challenge the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the appeal of assessee because no satisfaction note have been recorded in the case of the person- searched for invoking jurisdiction under section 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Sufficient time was already granted to the Department to revise its grounds of appeal. However, no steps have been taken by the Department. It is, therefore, clear that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) as produced above, have not been challenged by the Revenue on any of the grounds of appeals. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue on merit would not arise from the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the appeal of the Revenue would not be maintainable in the absence of any challenge to the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) with regard to quashing of proceedings under section 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961, in the absence of any satisfaction note recorded by the A.O. of the person searched. In view of the above, Departmental appeal is dismissed.” 4. In view of the above we do not see any mistake apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal dated 25.03.2021 in ITA No.3853/Del/2017. Thus, the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.01.2026. Sd/- Sd/- [S. RIFAUR RAHMAN] [C.N. PRASAD] ACCOUTNANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 08.01.2026 NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Printed from counselvise.com Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "