DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI V. CHETAN GOYAL, DELHI

ITA 356/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax against the order of the CIT(A) which had deleted an addition of Rs. 3,78,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer. The addition was initially based on findings from a search and seizure operation. The CIT(A) set aside the addition, referencing decisions from the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court. The Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal argued that the CIT(A) erred in relying on these judgments, which were pending adjudication in the Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing the lack of a stay on the operation of the impugned judgments and the precedent set by a co-ordinate bench in a similar case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785471 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, CIT vs. Jasjit Singh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV KAUSHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMBIR SINGH
• Keywords: Set aside; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 132; 153A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 356/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner of Income, Room No. 343, 4rd Floor, E-2, ERA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. Vs. Chetan Goyal, B-28, Anand Vihar S.O., East Delhi Delhi-1100 92 PAN :AHTPG3172D (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the Revenue is against order dated 23.10.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. CIT(A)”) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 30.12.2022 of the Learned Assessing Officer/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-31, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. AO”) under Sections 139(1) of the Act for assessment year 2021-22. Department by Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR) Assessee by Shri Sombir Singh, CA Date of hearing 20.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 356/Del.2025 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act declaring income of Rs.20,48,760/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. Notice under Section 143(2) of Act dated 30.06.2022 was issued by Ward-71(3), Delhi. The case was transferred to the Ld. AO vide order under Section 127 of the Act dated 14.11.2022 by Ld. PCIT, Delhi-15. The notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 17.11.2022 was issued. During the course of search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act at the premises of Shri Parveen K. Jain and M/s. Jainco Ltd. on 06.01.2021 and mobile phone of Shri Parveen K. Jain was recovered and seized. On perusal of mobile phone, it was found to have sent an image relating to the property at 451, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi-110092, fixing sale consideration at Rs.9,58,00,000/- was paid in cash. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 25.11.2022 was issued. Show-cause-notice dated 25.12.2022 was issued. The assessee filed reply vide letter dated 27.12.2022. On completion of assessment proceeding, Ld. AO vide order dated 30.12.2022 made addition of Rs.3,78,00,000/-. 3. Against order dated 30.12.2022 of Ld. AO, the appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was allowed vide order dated 23.10.2024. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant/revenue preferred present appeal with following grounds: Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 356/Del.2025 “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,78,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the computation of the block period under Sections 153C and 153A of the Income Tax Act as interpreted by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., aligns with the legislative intent and procedural flexibility outlined in CBDT Circular No. 2/2018 dated 15 February 2018. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in relying on the judgements in the cases of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Jasjit Singh and ignoring the fact that these matters are currently pending adjudication in the Supreme Court. The revenue has filed SLP in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (SLP No. 2856/2024) and review application in the case of Jasjit Singh. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized, by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person, even when this interpretation is contrary to the legislative intent since for the years after the search there can never be incriminating seized material and as such assessment in years cannot be made u/s 153C of the Act? 5. That the order of the CIT (A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 6. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either on or before the final hearing of the appeal.” 5. Learned Authorized Representative for Revenue submitted that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that search action dated 06.01.2021 was followed by centralization of assessee’s case vide order dated 14.11.2022. The computation of block period under Section 153C and 153A of the Act interpreted by Hon'ble Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 356/Del.2025 High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. and Jasjit Singh was pending adjudication in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. Learned Authorized Representative for the respondent/assessee relied on order dated 05.05.2025 in ITA No.5604/Del/2024 titled as “DCIT vs. Rajesh Craft Jewels India Pvt. Ltd. in favour of assessee. 7. From the examination of record in light of aforesaid, it is crystal that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 23.10.2024 in para no. 8.18 by following decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jasjit Singh [2003] 458 ITR 477- SC dated 26.09.2023 and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.[2024] 161 taxmann.com 160 (Del.) dated 03.04.2024 and considering the fact that substantive addition is already deleted, set aside the order dated 30.12.2022 of Ld. AO. 7.1 The Revenue’s challenge is based on pendency of adjudication of judgements in the case of CIT vs. Jasjit Singh and Ojjus Medicare (supra) before Hon’ble Apex Court. 8. A Co-ordinate Bench in order dated 05.05.2025 in ITA No.5604/Del/2024 titled as “DCIT vs. Rajesh Craft Jewels India Pvt. Ltd” in para nos. 5 & 6 has held as under: “5. The Revenue vehemently argues in light of it’s above extracted substantive grounds that the department is in the process of filing it’s Special Leave Petition (“SLP”) in hon’ble apex court in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and also a review application in Jasjit Singh (supra) case(s) hereinabove. We are of the considered view that once the assessee’s case is covered u/s 153C(1) first proviso of the Act, the mere Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 356/Del.2025 fact that the department is in the process of availing it’s legal remedies before hon’ble apex court would not ipso facto result in postponing of the hearing in the instant appeal. We accordingly uphold the learned CIT(A) well reasoned findings quashing the impugned section 143(3) as non-est in the eyes of law. Ordered accordingly. 6. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.” 9. In view of above material facts by following judicial precedent, it is held that pendency of litigation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in absence of stay of operation of impugned judgments, the hearing can’t be postponed by authorities. Therefore the grounds of appeal of Revenue being de void of merit, are rejected. 10. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIMAL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27 October, 2025. Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to: 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "