DILIP CHADHA,PAHARGANJ, NEW DELHI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI

ITA 5351/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Dilip Chadha against the assessment order passed under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Delhi. The assessment was based on assets seized during a search operation on M/s. Alankit group of cases, which allegedly belonged to the assessee. The primary legal issue was whether the Assessing Officer had properly recorded satisfaction regarding the relevance of the seized assets to the assessee's income, as required by section 153C. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer, leading to the quashing of the assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831446 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Saksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1 (Delhi)(HC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMISH S. GUPT
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMIT LALCHANDANI

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5351/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sh. Dilip Chadha, 9327, 2nd Floor, Street No. 7, Multani Dhanda, New Delhi Vs. DCIT, Circle-32, New Delhi PAN: AGYPC9846Q (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025- 26/1079517972(1), dated 12.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Assessee by Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Ms. Sejal Arora, Adv. Sh. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Department by Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 21.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 21.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5351/Del/2025 2 | P a g e Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. We notice at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue on legality of the impugned section 153C assessment framed by the learned Assessing Officer on 31st March, 2024 in the assessee’s case. A few relevant facts may be noticed. 3. There is no dispute between the parties that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in question on 18.10.2019 in M/s. Alankit group of cases. The learned Assessing Officer of the said searched party thereafter recorded his section 153C satisfaction on 15.06.2022 (page 61) in the paper-book that the corresponding valuable assets found/seized during the course of search in fact belonged to the assessee i.e. a third person. He forwarded the relevant case records to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer who recorded his latter satisfaction under section 153C on 22.08.2022 without even making explicitly clear that the aforesaid seized materials or valuables or assets had a bearing in the assessee’s case (page 62 to 63 in the paper-book). 3. Faced with this situation, learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues that we need not adopt such a hyper technical approach once the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5351/Del/2025 3 | P a g e Assessing Officer’s aforesaid satisfaction had been duly recorded in tune with the procedure prescribed in the statute itself. 4. All these Revenue’s arguments fail to impress upon us. We make it clear at the cost of repetition that the assessee’s Assessing Officer had nowhere recorded a satisfaction that the valuables/assets in question found/seized during the course of search had any “bearing” on determination of the assessee’s total income. Case law Saksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1 (Delhi)(HC) has already settled the very issue in the asseessee’s favour and against the department to the very effect. We thus quash the impugned assessment framed in assessee’s case in very terms. All other pleadings/arguments between the parties stand rendered academic. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st January, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (AMITABH SHUKLA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22nd January, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5351/Del/2025 4 | P a g e 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "