DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI V. SAURABH MAHESHWARI, DELHI

ITA 2869/DEL/2025

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777300 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2025
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT-7 Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del), PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd., (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del), CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh (2024) 465 ITR 101 (SC), Pr. CIT, Central-1 vs. Ojjus Medicar Pvt. Ltd. ITA 52/2024 dated 03.04.2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYAINDER SINGH SIDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMIT LALCHANDANI; SHIVAM

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member & Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Member ITA No. 2868/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 ITA No. 2869/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 ITA No. 2870/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 DCIT, CC-27, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi Vs Saurabh Maheshwari, D-7/1, Third floor, DLF Phase-I, Sikandarpur Ghosi (68), DLF QE, SO Gurgaon, Gurgaon. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AGAPM2962R AND ITA No. 3150/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 DCIT, CC-26, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi Vs Smt. Veena Gupta, BT-36, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi – 88 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFJPG5638L Assessee by : Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing: 01.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19.09.2025 ORDER Per Bench : These are four Revenues’ appeals against the two different assesses namely Shri Saurabh Maheshwari pertaining to assessment years 2014-15, 2015- 16 & 2016-17 and Smt. Veena Gupta pertaining to assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi & Printed from counselvise.com 2 | P a g e Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi respective orders, involving proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Since all the four revenues’ appeals involved the identical issues, hence, the same were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 2868/Del/2025 (AY 2014-15), being lead case. 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. We first of all note that there arises the former legal issue of validity of the impugned assessment itself herein as the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in question on 18.10.2019 followed by initiation of section 153C notice issued to the assessee on 17.01.2023 culminating in the impugned assessment framed in his case on 03.02.2024. 4. This being the clinching factual position, learned CIT(DR) could hardly dispute that the assessment year involved herein is 2014-15 i.e. beyond the maximum time period of assessment years from the date of section 153C satisfaction i.e. 16.01.2023 relevant to assessment year 2023-24. Various recent judicial precedents CIT-7 Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del), PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd., (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh (2024) 465 ITR 101 (SC) have already settled the issue against the department that the date of satisfaction u/s 153C(1) first proviso which has to be construed as the date of search for the purpose of computing the corresponding assessment years in question as the case herein. Further, it is noted that the date of satisfaction recorded by the JAO is the date of handing over of the documents as held by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT, Central-1 vs. Ojjus Medicar Pvt. Ltd. ITA 52/2024 dated 03.04.2024 and other connected matters. Also, at the time of hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the aggregate amount in the relevant assessment years even does not exceed the prescribed limit, which was not controverted by the Ld. DR. Therefore, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order, which does not need any Printed from counselvise.com 3 | P a g e interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same and accordingly, we thus hold that the impugned assessment dated 03.02.2024 as not sustainable in law in very terms. All other pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic. Accordingly, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed for assessment year 2014-15 in the case of ACIT vs. Saurabh Maheshwari. 5. As regards other appeals of revenue are concerned, the same are related to assessment years 2015-16 & 2016-17 in respect of Shri Saurabh Maheshwari and for assessment year 2015-16 in respect of Smt. Veena Gupta are concerned, our aforesaid decision given in assessment year 2014-15 in the case of ACIT vs. Saurabh Maheshwari will apply mutatis mutandis to these assessment years as well, being issue involved is identical in all other three appeals of the Revenue also., Resultantly, the remaining 03 appeals of the Revenue also stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner. 6. To sum up, these Revenues’ four appeals stand dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 19/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (M. Balaganesh) (Sudhir Kumar) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 19/09/2025 *SR BHATNAGGAR* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "