M/S ANTRIKSH ENGINEERS AND BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI V. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , GUGAON

ITA 9039/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon, which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3)/153A(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the method of revenue recognition in real estate projects and the legality of the assessments made following a search operation on the Antriksh Group. The Tribunal examined whether the assessments were validly made under Section 153C, considering the lack of incriminating material and the procedural flaws in the satisfaction note.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 858666 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-05-2026
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. and Others, CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh, PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. and Others, SRS Panchratan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd Versus DCIT, Central Circle-7, Delhi, Vimalarjun Trust Vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Delhi, Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad, The DCIT, Circle-1 (4), Bengaluru, Vs Sunil Kumar Sharma, Sri KandaswamyRajendra, DCIT. Vs Sunil Kumar Sharma, Akanksha Gupta VS. ACIT, Central Circle-04, Delhi, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI v. BENNETT WILLIAMSONENGINEERS LTD, DELHI, M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LIMITED v. ACIT, CIRCLE-9 (1), NEW DELHI, SHRI JAGJIT SINGH v. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 21, NEW DELHI, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14 VERSUS SHREE JASJIT SINGH
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JITENDER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN
• Keywords: Question of law; Search and seizure; Loose papers
• Section: 143(3); 132

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.9037 to 9039, 9042, 9043, 9046 & 9047/Del/2025 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2015-16) M/s Antriksh Engineers And Builders Pvt.Ltd. 34/C-8, Sector-8, Rohini, North West Delhi, Delhi – 110085 Vs. DCIT/ACIT Central Circle-1, Gurgaon Haryana स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAFCA3020J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Sh. Ayush Garg, CA Respondent by : Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 14.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.07.2026 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee and revenue against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon(hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) FAA’ for short) in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 143(3)/153A(1)(b)of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under:- ITA No. & AY Ld. FAA who passed the appellate order Appeal No. & Date of order of the Ld. FAA AO who passed the assessment order & Date of order 9037/Del/25 2009-10 CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon Appeal No. 11179, 11152, 11181, 11157, 11165, 11147/CIT(A)-3/Ggn/16-17 & 10371/CIT(A)-3, Ggn/17-18 Dated 10.11.2025 DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon Dated 29.03.2016 9038/Del/25 2010-11 CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon Appeal No. 11179, 11152, 11181, 11157, 11165, 11147/CIT(A)-3/Ggn/16-17 & 10371/CIT(A)-3, Ggn/17-18 Dated 10.11.2025 DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon Dated 29.03.2016 9039/Del/25 2011-12 CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon Appeal No. 11179, 11152, 11181, 11157, 11165, 11147/CIT(A)-3/Ggn/16-17 & 10371/CIT(A)-3, Ggn/17-18 Dated 10.11.2025 DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon Dated 29.03.2016 9042/Del/25 2012-13 CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon Appeal No. 11179, 11152, 11181, 11157, 11165, 11147/CIT(A)-3/Ggn/16-17 & 10371/CIT(A)-3, Ggn/17-18 Dated 10.11.2025 DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon Dated 29.03.2016 9043/Del/25 2013-14 CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon Appeal No. 11179, 11152, 11181, 11157, 11165, 11147/CIT(A)-3/Ggn/16-17 & 10371/CIT(A)-3, Ggn/17-18 Dated 10.11.2025 DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon Dated 29.03.2016 9046/Del/25 2014-15 CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon Appeal No. 11179, 11152, 11181, 11157, 11165, 11147/CIT(A)-3/Ggn/16-17 & 10371/CIT(A)-3, Ggn/17-18 Dated 10.11.2025 DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon Dated 29.03.2016 9047/Del/25 2015-16 CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon Appeal No. 11179, 11152, 11181, 11157, 11165, 11147/CIT(A)-3/Ggn/16-17 & 10371/CIT(A)-3, Ggn/17-18 Dated 10.11.2025 DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon Dated 29.03.2016 Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) 2. Heard and perused the records. The appeals involve common question of law and fact, thus same are decided by this common order. The facts in brief are that a search action has been carried on Antriksh Group on 05.02.2014. Consequent to the search, the Id. AO has issued notice u/s 153C after recording satisfaction on 23.02.2016, copy is reproduced below:- Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) 2.1 The assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate development and during the year under consideration, it had undertaken development of a real estate project.In accordance with the accounting policy, the assessee had adopted the Project Completion Method (PCM) for recognising revenue from the project. Under this method, revenue is recognised only when the project reaches completion and the risks and rewards of ownership are substantially transferred Accordingly, since the project had not reached completion during the relevant years- AY 2009-10 to AY 2013-14, no revenue was recognised in the profit and loss account. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) 2.2 Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132 was carried out in the case of Antriksh Group on 05.02.2014, pursuant to which proceedings under section 153C were initiated against the assessee company. No incriminating material of any sort was found and seized from the search.2.3 However, from the AY 2014-15 onwards, the assessee company has started following the Percentage Completion Method (POM) for recognising revenue from the project. Under this method, revenue is recognised with reference to the stage of completion of the project. Following this, the assessee has recorded revenue of Rs.112,28,84,582/- in AY 2014-15. 2.4 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Id. Assessing Officer questioned the method of revenue recognition followed by the assessee and issued a show cause notice as to why the Percentage Completion Method (POCM) should not be applied for recognising revenue. The assessee explained that it had consistently followed the Project Completion Method, which is a recognised method of accounting for real estate projects for AY 2009-10 to 2013-14, and therefore no revenue was required to be recognised during the year. However, the Id. AO rejected the method followed by the assessee and estimated income by applying a rate of 20% on the advances Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 6 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) received during the year.The other additions have been made on account of the allegation of unaccounted receipts and payment on the basis of alleged incriminating document, which as alleged by assessee are dumb documents and not related to the assessee.The CIT(A) has confirmed the addition and the assessee is in appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal. 2.5 In this context, the summary of the additions made in different years are as under: A.Y. 20% of Advances Received Unaccounted Receipts Unaccounted Payments 2009-10 51033110 - 300000 2010-11 64228050 51447080 3100000 2011-12 38111590 18428258 - 2012-13 45659055 53698400 - 2013-14 46257277 - - 2014-15 26594357 - - 2015-16 5668700 - - Total 227552139 123573688 3400000 3. Ld. Counsel has submitted that the order passed for all 7 assessment years (AY 2009-10 to AY 2015-16) are unsustainable on the following grounds:- Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 7 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) (A) Firstly, Assessment Order for AY 2009-10 is bad in law and liable to be quashed, as the assessment year under consideration falls beyond the permissible block period of six assessment years preceding the search year. Date of deemed search is 23.02.2016 (AY 2016-17). (B) Secondly, Assessment order for AY 2013-14 is an unabated/completed assessment year and no addition can be made in the absence of any incriminating material, as is evident from the assessment order itself where no addition has been made on account of seized material. (C) Thirdly, Assessment order for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 has been passed u/s 143(3)/144 are invalid as the same was required to be passed under section 153C as deemed date of search is 23.02.2016 (AY 2016-17). (D) Further, Consolidated Satisfaction Note for multiple years (AY 2008-09 to AY 2014-15) is invalid, illegal and bad-in law (E) No Seized Material whatsoever has been referred in the Satisfaction Note, hence no jurisdiction of AO under section 153C of the Act Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 8 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) F) Even otherwise, Approval granted u/s 153D on 29.03.2016 (i.e. before 01.04.2021- the date of retrospective applicability made by Finance Act 2026) is mechanical and without application of mind G) Moreover, the addition of merits is also not sustainable:  Addition of 20% of advances received during the year, is bad in law  Addition of Unaccounted Receipts and Unaccounted Payments is Invalid and Bad in Law. 3.1 On the contrary ld. DR has relied the impugned orders. 3.2 As with regard to the contention raised on legal grounds we find that assessee has raised the aforesaid legal grounds by way of additional grounds and for convenience the same are reproduced for each year separately, here below; Additional Ground for AY: 2009-10: “17. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law and liable to be quashed, as the assessment year under consideration falls beyond the permissible block period of six assessment years reckoned from the date of handing over of seized material/ initiation of Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 9 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) proceedings under section 153C, and therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction itself is invalid. 18. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Act and the consequent assessment order are bad and liable to be quashed in the absence of any valid satisfaction being recorded by the assessing officer of the assessee. 19. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C is invalid, illegal, unsustainable and liable to be quashed, as the satisfaction note has been recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee collectively for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2014-15, without identifying or linking alleged material to any specific Assessment Year. 20. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer under section 153C does not refer to any seized material, much less any incriminating material, and thus the proceedings initiated are illegal, invalid, non est and hence unsustainable. 21. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under section 153C is illegal, invalid, mechanical in nature and has been recorded without application of mind. 22. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order passed by the AO under section 153A(1)(b) of the Act despite the same is illegal and void-ab initio in the absence of any search initiated under section 132 of the Income Tax Act in the name of the assessee.” . Additional Ground for AY: 2010-11: “17. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Act and the consequent assessment order are bad and liable to be quashed in the absence of any valid satisfaction being recorded by the assessing officer of the assessee. 18. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C is invalid, illegal, unsustainable and liable to be quashed, as the satisfaction note has been recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee collectively for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2014-15, without identifying or linking alleged material to any specific Assessment Year. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 10 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) 19. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer under section 153C does not refer to any seized material, much less any incriminating material, and thus the proceedings initiated are illegal, invalid, non est and hence unsustainable. 20 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under section 153C is illegal, invalid, mechanical in nature and has been recorded without application of mind. 21. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order passed by the AO under section 153A(1)(b) of the Act despite the same is illegal and void-ab initio in the absence of any search initiated under section 132 of the Income Tax Act in the name of the assessee.” Additional Ground for AY: 2011-12: “17. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Act and the consequent assessment order are bad and liable to be quashed in the absence of any valid satisfaction being recorded by the assessing officer of the assessee. 18. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C is invalid, illegal, unsustainable and liable to be quashed,as the satisfaction note has been recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee collectively for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2014-15, without identifying or linking alleged material to any specific Assessment Year. 19. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer under section 153C does not refer to any seized material, much less any incriminating material, and thus the proceedings initiated are illegal, invalid, non est and hence unsustainable. 20. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under section 153C is illegal, invalid, mechanical in nature and has been recorded without application of mind. 21. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order passed by the AO under section 153A(1)(b) of the Act despite the same is illegal and void-ab initio in the absence of any search initiated under section 132 of the Income Tax Act in the name of the assessee.” Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 11 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) Additional Ground for AY: 2012-13: “17. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Act and the consequent assessment order are bad and liable to be quashed in the absence of any valid satisfaction being recorded by the assessing officer of the assessee. 18. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C is invalid, illegal, unsustainable and liable to be quashed,as the satisfaction note has been recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee collectively for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2014-15, without identifying or linking alleged material to any specific Assessment Year. 19. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer under section 153C does not refer to any seized material, much less any incriminating material, and thus the proceedings initiated are illegal, invalid, non est and hence unsustainable. 20. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under section 153C is illegal, invalid, mechanical in nature and has been recorded without application of mind. 21. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order passed by the AO under section 153A(1)(b) of the Act despite the same is illegal and void-ab initio in the absence of any search initiated under section 132 of the Income Tax Act in the name of the assessee.” Additional Ground for AY: 2013-14: “14. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Act and the consequent assessment order are bad and liable to be quashed in the absence of any valid satisfaction being recorded by the assessing officer of the assessee. 15. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C is invalid, illegal, unsustainable and liable to be quashed.as the Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 12 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) satisfaction note has been recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee collectively for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2014-15, without identifying or linking alleged material to any specific Assessment Year. 16. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer under section 153C does not refer to any seized material, much less any incriminating material, and thus the proceedings initiated are illegal, invalid, non est and hence unsustainable. 17. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under section 153C is illegal, invalid, mechanical in nature and has been recorded without application of mind. 18. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order passed by the AO under section 153A(1)(b) of the Act despite the same is illegal and void-ab initio in the absence of any search initiated under section 132 of the Income Tax Act in the name of the assessee.” Additional Ground for AY: 2014-15: “14. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction, and is liable to be quashed, inasmuch as the mandatory provisions of section 153C of the Act have not been complied with. 15. Without prejudice to the above, the proceedings initiated and the consequent assessment order are bad and liable to be quashed in theabsence of any valid satisfaction under section 153C being recorded by the assessing officer of the assessee. 16. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assumption of jurisdiction is invalid, illegal, unsustainable and liable to be quashed, as the satisfaction note under section 153C has been recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee collectively for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2014-15, without identifying or linking alleged material to any specific Assessment Year. 17. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer under section 153C does not refer to any seized material, much less any incriminating material, and thus the proceedings initiated are illegal, invalid, non est and hence unsustainable. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 13 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) 18. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction recorded under section 153C by the Assessing Officer is illegal, invalid, mechanical in nature and has been recorded without application of mind.” Additional Ground for AY: 2015-16: “9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction, and is liable to be quashed, inasmuch as the mandatory provisions of section 153C of the Act have not been complied with.” 3.3 Considering the additional grounds as raised, being pure legal and jurisdictional grounds and same can be decided on basis of admitted facts, the same are admitted for hearing. 4. We have considered the submission and gone through the material. Now as with regard to the Assessment Order for AY 2009-10, on admitted facts, we find that pursuant to search action on 05.02.2014, satisfaction u/s 153C has been recorded and notice u/s 153C has been issued on 23.02.2016, as is evident from PB pg. 31-32 of AY 2009-10.Since, satisfaction us/ 153C has been recorded on 23.02.2016, the deemed date of search in the case of assessee shall be 23.02.2016, which falls in FY 2015-16 (i.e. AY 2016- 17).Accordingly, the block period of six assessment years would be AY Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 14 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) 2010-11 to AY 2015-16. Thus, AY 2009-10 falls beyond the block period, and thus the notice issued u/s 153C for AY 2009-10 is illegal, invalid and liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on Hon’ble Delhi High Court Judgement in the case of PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. and Others, [2024] 465 ITR101, dated 03.04.2024, and Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of CIT 14Vs. Jasjit Singh, [2023] 458 ITR 437 (SC), dated 26.09.2023 4.1 In regard to this issue ld. Counsel has also demonstrated that extended period of 10 years is not applicable as search has been not been initiated on or after 01.04.2017 thus the extended block period of ten assessment years, as contemplated under the amended provisions of Section 153A/153C of the Act by Finance Act, 2017, is not applicable in the present case, as the said extended period has been made effective only in respect of search actions initiated on or after 01.04.2017.In the instant case, the search has admittedly been conducted on 05.02.2014, and deemed date of search i.e., 23.02.2016, both of which are prior to the said cut-off date.Accordingly, the provisions relating to the extended period of ten years have no application to the facts of the present case. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 15 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) 4.2 Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction and issuance of notice under section 153C as well as the assessment framed pursuant thereto for AY 2009-10 is without jurisdiction, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 5. In regard to Assessment order for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 passed u/s 143(3)/144 of the Act we find that the assessments have been made u/s 143(3) on the basis of certain documents found and seized during the course of search conducted on Antriksh Group and Dwarkadhis Group of cases on 05.02.2014.It is now a settled position of law that the period of six years for the purposes of Section 153C has to be construed from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which satisfaction for issue of notice u/s 153C was recorded. In present case, satisfaction for issue of notice was recorded on 23.02.2016 i.e.AY 2016-17, becomes the deemed search year. Consequently, the period of six years of which the assessment proceedings could be initiated u/s 153C were AYs 2010-11 to AY 2015-16. In view of same the AY 2014- 15 and AY 2015-16 are covered under the provisions of section 153C of the Act and assessment should have been framed under section 153C of the Act after issuing notice under section 153C of the Act. Thus present case Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 16 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) assessment for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 has been wrongly framed under section 143(3) of the Act.A co-ordinate bench in the case of Raja Varshney v. DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi, vide ITA No.1459/Del/2024, order dated: 26.09.2024, has quashed the Assessment Order holding that assessment for AY 2021-22 has been wrongly framed under section 143(3) of the Act by ignoring the mandatory provision of section 153C of the Act.Reliance is further placed on the following judicial pronouncements in this regard wherein it has been held that if any assessment year falling within the period of six years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant for the previous year in which search was conducted for initiating proceeding u/s 153C of the Act, then the assessment ought to have been made under section 153C by issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act and not u/s 143(2) of the Act.25. Reliance is also placed on following:-  ITAT Delhi in the case of Akanksha Gupta VS. ACIT, Central Circle-04, Delhi, 2024 (7) TMI 1133, dated 10.07.2024  ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI v. BENNETT WILLIAMSONENGINEERS LTD, DELHI, 2024(5) TMI 905, dated: - 02.01.2024. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 17 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16)  ITAT Mumbai in the case of DIWAKAR N. SHETTY v. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6 (1), MUMBAI,2020 (11) TMI 560, Dated: - 30-9-2020.  ITAT Delhi in the case of M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LIMITED v. ACIT, CIRCLE-9 (1), NEW DELHI, 2020 (1) TMI 85 - ITAT DELHI, Dated: - 31.12.2019.  ITAT Delhi in the case of SHRI JAGJIT SINGH v. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 21, NEW DELHI,2019 (10) TMI 350 - ITAT DELHI, dated: - 01.10.2019  Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14 VERSUS SHREE JASJIT SINGH, 2015(8) TMI TMI - DELHI HIGH COURT, Dated. - August 11, 2015. 5.1 In view of the above the assessments framed under section 143(3) of the Act for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16, which was otherwise required to be framed under section 153C of the Act are not sustainable and therefore liable to be quashed. 6. Assessment order for AY 2013-14 is a completed assessment year and settled law is that no addition can be made in the absence of any incriminating material. The return for AY 2013-14 was filed on 29.03.2013. As observed above, pursuant to search action on 05.02.2014, satisfaction u/s Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 18 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) 153C has been recorded and notice u/s 153C has been issued on 23.02.2016 in the case of assessee. Thus, the deemed date of search in the case of assessee shall be 23.02.2016. On this deemed date of search, the time-limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for AY 2013-14 has expired on 30.09.2014, and thus the AY 2013-14 is completed assessment year. In view of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of PCIT Vs. AbhisarBuildwell P. Ltd. and Others, [2023] 454 ITR 212 (SC), no addition can be made by the Id. AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. 6.1 Now, in the present case, the sole addition of Rs. 4,62,57,277/- has been made by changing the method of accounting in respect of real estate development from project completion to percentage completion method and applying rate of 20% on the total amount of the advance received against booking from the customers. Admittedly, this addition is not based on any material, much less than any incriminating material. Accordingly, applying the ratio in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), the addition in the AY 2013-14 is bad in law and liable to be deleted. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 19 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) 7. In regard to other AYs and also for aforesaid years, we find that a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple years is recorded on 23.02.2016,and the copy of same is available at PB pg. 37-38 of AY 2010-11. Very apparently the ld. Assessing Officer has failed to record separate and independent satisfaction notes for each assessment year. While the law is now settled that a consolidated satisfaction for multiple assessment years vitiates the very assumption of jurisdiction, and reliance is placed for same on decision in SRS Panchratan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd Versus DCIT, Central Circle- 7, Delhi, [2025 (12) TMI 1420], dated 14.11.2025, Vimalarjun Trust Vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Delhi [ITA No. 2094/DEL/2024] dated 05.12.2025, Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad [ITA Nos. 1000 to 1006/Hyd/2025] dated 07.01.2026, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of The DCIT, Circle-1 (4), Bengaluru, Vs Sunil Kumar Sharma, Sri KandaswamyRajendra [2024 (2) TMI 116] dated 22.01.2024 and SLP in the above case has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court cited as DCIT. Vs Sunil Kumar Sharma [2025 (10) TMI 1168] dated 27.10.2025. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 20 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) 7.1 In view of the foregoing facts and the settled judicial position, the recording of a single consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years is contrary to law. Since the mandatory requirement of recording separate and year-specific satisfaction has not been complied with, the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act is illegal, invalid and void ab initio, and consequently, all proceedings and assessment orders framed there under deserve to be quashed. 8. Further the satisfaction note makes it apparent that there is no reference of any seized material to vest jurisdiction with ld. AO for proceeding under section 153C of the Act. The assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act can only be sustained if the satisfaction note makes determinative reference to seized material and findings that same having bearing on the determination of income for the impugned assessment years.A patent reading of the Satisfaction Note shows that the entire basis of proceedings rests only on the alleged disclosure of surrendered income made by the assessee group vide letters dated 12.03.2014 and 17.03.2014. The Ld. AO has merely recorded a mechanical satisfaction to the effect that since a disclosure has Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 21 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) been made in the case of the assessee, proceedings under section 153C are warranted. There is no reference whatsoever to any seized material, much less any incriminating material, belonging to or pertaining to the assessee, which has a bearing on the determination of income for the relevant assessment years. We find substance in the contention of ld. Counsel that such surrender letters cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be regarded as \"seized material\" found during the course of search so as to trigger jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act. The very foundation for invoking section 153C is the existence of seized material belonging to or relating to the assessee, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Saksham Commodities Ltd. [464 TR 1] has categorically held that the AO is required to identify specific seized material and record a clear satisfaction as to how such material pertains to particular assessment years and has a bearing on determination of income. In the absence of any such satisfaction based on seized material, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C is invalid and liable to be quashed. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 22 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., (supra). Consequently, the assessment framed and additions made pursuant thereto are liable to be quashed. 9. Lastly in regard to ground no. 6, as raised in all the AY, except AY 2015-16, that approval granted u/s 153D of the Act is not in accordance with law, we find that the approval was granted u/s 153D of the Act on 29.03.2016 i.e. before 01.04.2021, the date of retrospective applicability made by Finance Act 2026, and copy of same is available at page 72 of PB for AY 2009-10, and we reproduce the same; Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 23 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) 9.1 The approval no where indicates as to what were the issues and seized material relevant to seven years for which a consolidated approval was being granted. At the same time our discussion above, has established that even the satisfaction note was not recorded in accordance with mandate of law. The additions were not on basis of any incriminating material found is search. Thus the exercise of approval function seems to be without any application of mind and makes apparent that it is not a case of insufficiency or deficiency of reasoning in grant of approval, but absence of reasoning and not application of mind to the records but summarily approving the drafts.The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Nayyar in 2024(6) TMI 29, dated 15.05.2024, has held that the approvalu/s 153D of the Act has to be granted for each Assessment year independently. Then in the case of Shri Deeraj Chaudhary Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-8, Delhi, 2025(9) TMI1372, dated 12.09.2025, wherein this issue was referred to the consideration of Hon'ble Third Member, too it is held that approval if granted in a manner showing non-application of mind, same will vitiate the assessments. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 24 7 Appeals M/s Antriksh Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2009-10 to 2015-16) 10. Consequently we are inclined to sustain the corresponding additional grounds and ground no. 6. The appeals are allowed. The impugned assessments are quashed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.07.2026 Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) Sd/- (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 17.07.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "