DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), V. O.P. CHANANA,

ITSSA 124/DEL/2005

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by both the assessee, Shri Vivek Chanana, and the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, New Delhi, which arose from a block assessment order under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the legality of the block assessment order dated 26.03.2002, which was challenged on the grounds of being time-barred. The Tribunal examined the timelines and procedural adherence concerning the search and subsequent assessment, leading to the conclusion that the assessment was indeed time-barred, rendering it void ab initio.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 827783 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 20 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2005
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRIKANT NAMDEO
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Block assessment; Advance ruling; Loose papers
• Section: 132; 90; 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.65/DEL/2005 [Assessment Year: 01.04.89 to 17.12.99] Shri Vivek Chanana L/H of Late Shri O.P. Chanana, C-724, New Friends Colony, New Delhi Vs ACIT, Cricle-1(1), New Delhi PAN-AEKPB5167R Assessee Revenue IT(SS)A No.124/DEL/2005 [Assessment Year: 01.04.89 to 17.12.99] Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Room No.380C, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 Vs Late Shri O.P. Chanana, through legal heir Shri Vivek Chanana C-724, New Friends Colony, New Delhi PAN-AAIPU6601K Assessee Revenue Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. and Shri Saksham Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Shri Srikant Namdeo, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 05.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 07.01.2026 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM, These captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee as well as by the Revenue against order dated 29.12.2004 of learned Commissioner of Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.124 & 65/Del/2005 Page 2 of 17 Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment order dated 26.03.2002 passed u/s 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The above appeal of the Revenue in IT(SS)A No.124/Del/2005 and the cross appeal of the assessee in ITA(SS) No.65/Del/2005 is in respect of additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer in his order under section 158BC dated 26.03.2002. The Revenue in IT(SS)A No.124/Del/2005 and the assessee in ITA(SS) No.65/Del/2005 has raised following grounds of appeal:- Grounds of Appeal in IT(SS)A No.124/Del/2005 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,44,000/- out of addition of Rs. 13,86,000/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed investment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,05,505/- on account of undisclosed expenditure. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6,91,300/- out of various additions in para 13 to 19 of assessment order totaling Rs. 28,44,950/- made by the AO as undisclosed expenditure. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,000/- made by the AO as undisclosed expenditure. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,10,000/- made by the AO as undisclosed expenditure of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.124 & 65/Del/2005 Page 3 of 17 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,91,70,000/- made by the AO as undisclosed income of the assessee. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,69,27,791/- out of an addition of Rs. 42,65,56,771/- made by the AO as disclosed income of the assessee. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,78,471/- made by the AO as undisclosed expenditure. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- out of an addition of Rs. 33,00,000/- made by the AO unexplained investment.” Grounds of Appeal in ITA(SS) No.65/Del/2005 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred and was incorrect and unjustified in sustaining the following additions. 1.1) Addition of Rs. 7,12,600/- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 1 of the block assessment order. 1.2.) Addition of Rs. 11,42,000/- out of arbitrarily addition of Rs. 13,86,000/- made by the Assessing Officer in the block assessment order as per para 2 of this assessment order. 1.3) Addition of Rs. 15 lakhs arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 3 of this assessment order. 1.4) Addition of Rs. 19,14,578- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 4 of this assessment order. 1.5) Addition of Rs. 5,38,000/- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 6 of his assessment order. 1.6.) Addition of Rs. 3 lakhs arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 7 of this assessment order. 1.7) Addition of Rs. 13,750/- and Rs. 3,86,000/- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.124 & 65/Del/2005 Page 4 of 17 1.8) Addition of Rs. 94,000/- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 10 of this assessment order. 1.9) Addition of Rs. 71,825/- and Rs. 16,57,419/- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 11 & 12 of the assessment order. 1.10) Addition of Rs. 21,53,650/- out of total addition of Rs. 28,44,950/-arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in paras 13 to 19 of the block assessment order. 1.11) Addition of Rs. 5,65,507/- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 20 of the assessment order. 1.12) Addition of Rs. 5,25,267/- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 21 of this assessment order. 1.13) Addition of Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 2,05,000/- and Rs. 5 lakhs arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in paras 22, 23 & 24 of this assessment order. 1.14) In sustaining the addition of Rs. 51,290/- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 25 of the assessment order. 1.15) Addition of Rs. 2.10,000/- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 28 of the assessment order. 1.16) Addition of Rs. 12,35,580/- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 29 of the assessment order. 1.17) Addition of Rs. 4 lakhs arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 30 of the assessment order. 1.18) Addition of Rs. 4,94,000/- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 31 of the assessment order. 1.19) Addition of Rs. 40,000/- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 32 of the assessment order. 1.20) Addition of Rs. 5.60,000/- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 33 of the assessment order. 1.21) Addition of Rs. 51,10,267/- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 35 of the assessment order. 1.22) Addition of Rs. 3,21,400/- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 36 of the assessment order. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.124 & 65/Del/2005 Page 5 of 17 1.23) In allowing relief of Rs. 40,897- only out of addition of Rs. 13,06,901/- and Rs. 7,80,738/- arbitrarily made in para 37 & 38 of the assessment order. 1.24) Addition of Rs. 6 lakhs arbitrarily and incorrectly made by the Assessing Officer in para 39 of the assessment order. 1.25) Addition of Rs. 42,000/- arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 40 of the assessment order. 1.26) Addition of Rs. 57,27.886/- out of addition of Rs. 4,26,55,677/-arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 41 of the assessment order. 1.27) In sustaining the addition of Rs. 13 lakhs out of total addition of Rs.33 lakhs arbitrarily made by the Assessing Officer in para 43 of the assessment order. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred and was incorrect and unjustified in making the following enhancements without any reason and basis material and also without affording any opportunity for making such enhancement. The enhancement. so made is thus unilateral. 2.1) Enhancement of Rs. 52,000/- as per page 9 of his appeal order: 2.2) Enhancement of Rs. 1,35,48,750/- as per page 15, 16 and 17 of the appeal order. 2.3) Enhancement of Rs. 36,68,381/- as per pages 24 to 27 of the CIT C order. 2.4) Enhancement of Rs. 2 lakhs as per para 4.2 page 41 of the appeal order. 2.5) Enhancement of Rs. 4,58,240/- as per para 4.3 page 42 of the appeal order. 2.6) Enhancement of Rs. 1,42,00,000/- as per para 4.4 page 42 to 46 of the appeal order. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in treating the various amounts as undisclosed income only on the basis of some figures written in loose papers, only on Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.124 & 65/Del/2005 Page 6 of 17 the basis of no reply filed and also without proving that there was any income based on such jottings in the loose documents. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the various additions made by the Assessing Officer based on the report of the DDI (Inv.) a copy of which was never supplied to the assessee. As per the rule of natural justice, everything relied by the Assessing Officer or the appellate authority must be provided to the assessee before it is utilized and used for the purposes of assessment. 5) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the various additions u/s 69C without satisfying the conditions laid down in section 69C. 6) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in treating the various jottings in the loose papers as credits without examining the person concerned and also in the absence of any supporting or corroborative evidence. 7) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating that the assessee had given loans to various persons without any evidence and material. 8) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in treating the various amounts as undisclosed income u/s 68, 69, 69AB and 69C without satisfying the conditions laid down in such sections. 9) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in making an enhancement of Rs. 1,42,00,000/- in respect of the property which was never purchased by the assessee but purchased by his wife and son. 10) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in enhancing and thereby making an addition of Rs. 4,58,240/-against the provision of Chapter XIV-B. 11) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in enhancing a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.124 & 65/Del/2005 Page 7 of 17 without any opportunity and also against the provision of Chapter XIV-B. 12) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in assessing the income on the basis of bank account in the name of Bansi Lal based on post search enquiries. 13) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the assessment and not declaring the assessment as illegal even though passed after completion of the time permissible under Chapter XIV-B. 14) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in treating the action u/s 132(3) as continuation of search. 15) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in relying an order u/s 132(3) even though the same had become in operative in view of the provision of section 132(8A) and also even the order u/s 132(3) at the first place was not legal and validly issued. 16) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustified in ignoring the fact that there can be a continuation of action u/s 132(3) even after completion of the assessment and hence there is no extention of time limit for completion of block assessment on account of action u/s132(3) and provision of section 158BE would be applicable from the date of completion of the search and preparation of the search warrant prepared on 18/12/99.” 3. As per brief factual matrix, a search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 17.12.1999 upon the assessee at his residence being C-724, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. As per Panchnama, the search commenced at 09.10AM and was finally concluded at 9.45 PM on the same date. Consequent to the impugned search block assessment order under section 158BC was passed by the ld. AO on 26.03.2002 determining total undisclosed income of the assessee at Rs.9,12,26,980/-. The impugned additions were made in Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.124 & 65/Del/2005 Page 8 of 17 consideration of information found from the searched material. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A), vide his order dated 29.12.2004 gave part relief to the assessee. Both the Revenue and the assessee have filed the present appeals being aggrieved by the impugned appellate order. 4. At the outset, in its appeal in ITA(SS) No.65/Del/2005, the ld. Counsel for the assessee invited out attention to its grounds of appeal 13 to 16 and submitted that the assessment order under section 158BC dated 26.03.2002 per se is void ab initio as the same is barred by limitation. The above ground comprising legal grounds were pressed in the first place. It was argued that Chapter XIV-B contains section 158BE(1) prescribing the time limit for completion of the search assessment. This provides that the block assessment is to be completed within a period of two years from the end of the month in which the last of the authorisation for search u/s 132 was executed. In the present case the first and last authorisation was finally executed on 17/12/99. Thus, it was fiercely argued that the block assessment was required have been completed on or before by 31/12/2001. It was submitted that consequently the assessment completed bn 26/03/2002 is clearly timé barred. In support of its contentions, the ld. Counsel has placed reliance upon a number of judicial precedents. 5. The ld. CIT-DR, Shri Srikant Namdeo placed reliance upon the order of authorities below. It was submitted that during post search proceedings, there is Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.124 & 65/Del/2005 Page 9 of 17 practice of extending 132 extensions and the same may have been a case in this case also. Because of long passage of time in a bilty was expressed to produce the same. The ld. CIT-DR also argued that the phrase ‘finally concluded’ in item no.8 of the panchnama dated 17.12.1999 cannot be taken as final conclusion of the search since it was mere a customary phrase and not final. It was suggested that the mention of restraint order under section 132(3) in the following item no.9 of the panchnama itself alludes that the search was inconclusive. 6. We have heard rival submission in the light of material placed on record. Upon consideration, we have noted that the legal grounds raised by the assessee deserves to be adjudicated first. The Latin legal maxim Sublato fundamento cadit opus that corresponds to hypothesis that a superstructure does not survive on weak foundation is essential part of jurisprudence. This maxim literally translates to, \"If the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls\". It is a well- established principle in law, especially in cases where the initial action or underlying basis of a legal right is found to be invalid, causing all subsequent actions dependent on it to fail. Another related maxim with a similar meaning is Debile fundamentum fallit opus, which translates to \"Where there is a weak foundation, the work fails\". Before proceeding further, we deem it appropriate to extract the contemporary statutory prescription of section 132(3), 132(8A), and section 158BE. Section 132(3), 132(8A) Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.124 & 65/Del/2005 Page 10 of 17 (3) The authorised officer may, where it is not practicable to seize any such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, for reasons other than those mentioned in the second proviso to sub-section (1), serve an order on the owner or the person who is in immediate possession or control thereof that he shall not remove, part with or otherwise deal with it except with the previous permission of such officer and such officer may take such steps as may be necessary for ensuring compliance with this sub-section. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that serving of an order as aforesaid under this sub-section shall not be deemed to be seizure of such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing under clause (iii) of sub-section (1). xxxxxxxxx (8A) An order under sub-section (3) shall not be in force for a period exceeding sixty days from the date of the order…….” Section 158BE 158BE. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 153, the order under section 158BC shall be passed within twelve months from the end of the [quarter] in which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132, or requisition under section 132A, was executed or made, as the case may be: Provided that in a case where search under section 132 was initiated, or requisition under section 132A was made, and during the course of the proceedings for the assessment or reassessment of the [total undisclosed income] of the relevant block period, any reference under sub-section (1) of section 92CA is made, the period available for making an order of assessment or reassessment in respect of the block period shall be extended by twelve months: [Provided furtherthat in a case where in pursuance to fifth proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 158BC, the time allowed under the said clause for furnishing return is extended by a further period of thirty days, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words \"twelve months\", the words \"thirteen months\" had been substituted.] Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.124 & 65/Del/2005 Page 11 of 17 (2) In computing the period of limitation under sub-section (1), the period (not exceeding one hundred and eighty days) commencing from the date on which a search is initiated under section 132 or a requisition is made under section 132A and ending on the date on which the books of account, or other documents or money or bullion or jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A, as the case may be, are handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee, in whose case such search is initiated under section 132 or such requisition is made under section 132A, as the case may be, shall be excluded: Provided that where after exclusion of the period referred to in this sub-section, the period of limitation for making an order of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, expires before the end of a month, such period shall be extended to the end of such month. (3) The period of limitation for completion of assessment or reassessment for the block period in the case of the other person referred to in section 158BD shall be twelve months from the end of the [quarter] in which the notice under section 158BC in pursuance of section 158BD, was issued to such other person: Provided that in case where during the course of the proceedings for the assessment of undisclosed income of the block period in case of other person referred to in section 158BD, a reference under sub-section (1) of section 92CA is made, the period available for making an order of assessment in respect of the block period in case of such other person shall be extended by twelve months: [Provided further that in a case where in pursuance to fifth proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 158BC, the time allowed under the said clause for furnishing return is extended by a further period of thirty days, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words \"twelve months\", the words \"thirteen months\" had been substituted.] (4) In computing the period of limitation under this section, the following period shall be excluded,— [(i) the period commencing on the date on which stay on assessment proceedings was granted by an order or injunction of any court and ending on the date on Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.124 & 65/Del/2005 Page 12 of 17 which certified copy of the order vacating the stay was received by the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; or] (ii) the period commencing from the date on which a reference or first of the references for exchange of information is made by an authority competent under an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A and ending with the date on which the information requested is last received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or a period of one year, whichever is less; or (iii) the time taken in reopening the whole or any part of the proceeding or giving an opportunity to the assessee to be re-heard under the proviso to section 129; or (iv) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts audited or inventory valued under sub- section (2A) of section 142 and— (a) ending with the last date on which the assessee is required to furnish a report of such audit or inventory valuation under that sub-section; or (b) where such direction is challenged before a court, ending with the date on which the order setting aside such direction is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; or (v) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date on which the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer; or (vi) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer intimates the Central Government or the prescribed authority, the contravention of the provisions of clause (21) or clause (22B) or clause (23A) or clause (23B) of section 10, under sub-clause (i) of the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143 and ending with the date on which the copy of the order withdrawing the approval or rescinding the notification, as the case may be, under those clauses Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.124 & 65/Del/2005 Page 13 of 17 is received by the Assessing Officer; or (vii) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143 and ending with the date on which the copy of the order under clause (ii) or clause (iii) of the fifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 12AB, as the case may be, is received by the Assessing Officer; or (viii) the period commencing from the date on which a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (1) of section 144BA and ending on the date on which a direction under sub-section (3) or sub-section (6) or an order under sub-section (5) of the said section is received by the Assessing Officer; or (ix) the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Authority for Advance Rulings or before the Board for Advance Rulings under sub-section (1) of section 245Q and ending with the date on which the order rejecting the application is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (3) of section 245R; or (x) the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Authority for Advance Rulings or before the Board for Advance Rulings under sub-section (1) of section 245Q and ending with the date on which the advance ruling pronounced by it is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (7) of section 245R: Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in sub-section (1) or sub- section (3) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 158BC is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly: Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.124 & 65/Del/2005 Page 14 of 17 Provided further that where after extension of the period referred to in the first proviso, the period of limitation for making an order of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, expires before the end of a month, such period shall be extended to the end of such month. 7. Within the meanings of section 158BE(1) under Chapter XIV-B the Revenue authorities get two years from the end of the month from which the last of the authorization for warrant of search under section 132 was executed. In the present case the first and last authorisation was finally executed on 17/12/99. By calculation thereof the block assessment should have been completed on or before by 31/12/2001. Therefore, the assessment completed bn 26/03/2002 falls under the mischief of section 158BE(1) so as to fall in the category of an order barred by limitation. We have noted that nothing has been mentioned in the assessment order regarding the operation of the locker, however, to be fair to the revenue it may be postulated that since there was a operation of the locker in this case on 27/03/2000, the search should be treated to have been continued and concluded only on the last date of operation of the locker. The said presumption also do not save the interest of Revenue. First and foremost is the observation in column-8 of the punchnama of the search being ‘finally concluded’ on 17.12.1999. Assuming that the argument of ld. DR of the same remarks not being conclusive is accepted, we have noted that order us 132(3) was passed on 17/12/99 in respect of the locker which was in the joint names with wife. Though, there is no time limit fixed for the operation of section 132(3), but this section is controlled by section 132(8A) which says that Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.124 & 65/Del/2005 Page 15 of 17 an order us 132(3) shall not be in force for a period exceeding 60 days except when the authorised officer for the reasons to be recorded extend the period of operation after obtaining the approval of the designated authority. With the above hypothesis in mind, we note that the restraint expired on 17.02.2000. There is nothing on record to indicate that any extension of the said order was given. Now the two-year period would fall in February, 2002. Again, the order under section 158BC dated 26.03.2002 gets barred by limitation. Thus, we have noted that the order under section 158BC dated 26.03.2002 is a time barred order and hence void ab initio. We therefore set-aside the order of lower authorities and quash the impugned assessment order under section 158BC dated 26.03.2002. Accordingly, we allow grounds of appeal nos. 13 to 16 of the assessee raised in IT(SS) A No.65/Del/2005. 8. As we have allowed the legal grounds raised by the assessee in IT(SS) A No.65/Del/2005 and quashed the impugned assessment order under section 158BC dated 26.03.2002, all the other grounds of appeal nos. 1 to 12 raised by the assessee qua merits of the addition have become academic in nature. 9. As we have allowed the appeal of the assessee raised in IT(SS)A No.65/Del/2005 and quashed the assessment order under section 158BC dated 26.03.2002, the challenge raised by the Revenue in its appeal vide IT(SS) A No.124/Del/2005 contesting relief given by the ld. CIT(A) has become Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.124 & 65/Del/2005 Page 16 of 17 infructuous. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue in IT(SS) A No.124/Del/2005 is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(SS) A No.65/Del/2005 is allowed and appeal of the Revenue in IT(SS) A No.124/Del/2005 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07th January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [MADHUMITA ROY] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 07.01.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi, Printed from counselvise.com "