RAJAN GUPTA & SONS,DELHI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, DELHI

ITA 6517/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Navneet Gupta & Sons and Rajan Gupta & Sons against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which were based on the reassessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary legal issue was the validity of the jurisdiction assumed under section 153C, challenged on the grounds that the proceedings were initiated beyond the permissible period as per the Supreme Court's decision in CIT-III Vs. M/s Calcutta Knitwears Ludhiana. The tribunal examined the satisfaction notes recorded by the Assessing Officers and found that they were not in compliance with the stipulated time frame, leading to the quashing of the reassessment orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841037 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income-tax - vs. Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 362 ITR 673(SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JITENDER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 6516 & 6517/Del/2025 Navneet Gutpa & Sons Rajan Gupta & Sons (AY: 2019-20) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6516/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Navneet Gupta & Sons 1824-25, Bhagirath Place, Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110006 Vs. DCIT, Central Circle -15 New Delhi \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAAHN2736E Appellant .. Respondent ITA No.6517/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Rajan Gupta & Sons 1824-25, Bhagirath Place, Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110006 Vs. DCIT, Central Circle -15 New Delhi \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAAHR5461A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Sh. Ayush Garg, CA Respondent by : Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA Nos. 6516 & 6517/Del/2025 Navneet Gutpa & Sons Rajan Gupta & Sons (AY: 2019-20) O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These appeals preferred by the Assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. 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 153C r.w.s 143(3) 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 6516/D/25 2019-20 CIT(A)-26, Delhi DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1080475495(1) Dated 09.09.2025 DCIT, Central Circle -15 Dated 08.03.2024 6517/D/25 2019-20 CIT(A)-26, Delhi DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1080472981(1) Dated 09.09.2025 DCIT, Central Circle -15 Dated 08.03.2024 2. The appeals were heard together as they have common issue of fact n law involved. On hearing both sides we find that ld. Counsel has primarily stressed for disposal of ground No. 4 by way of which assumption of Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 6516 & 6517/Del/2025 Navneet Gutpa & Sons Rajan Gupta & Sons (AY: 2019-20) jurisdiction u/s 153C have been challenged. As for convenience we reproduce ground No. 4 below: “4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings under section 153C initiated against the assessee are beyond the permissible period as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax - vs. Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 362 ITR 673(SC) dated 12.03.2014 and accepted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No. 24/2015 dated 31.12.2015.” 3. Taking facts in case of assessee Rajan Gupta & Sons, as lead case, we find that during the hearing ld. AR has placed on record at page No. 63-78 the copy of assessment u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act concluded on 30.09.2021 in the case of Sushen Mohan Gupta. Now admittedly search and seizure operation was conducted on 02.01.2020 and subsequent dates on Sushen Mohan Gupta & others group of cases at different business and residential premises of the group and the case of present assessee was also reopened as part of the search proceedings. 4. In this context, in para 2 of the assessment order of the present assessee it is recorded that Dheeraj Dhar Gupta and Shri Dhar Gupta were subjected to search as part of Sushen Mohan Gupta and others on 02.01.2020 and during the course of same incriminating documents were found which became subject to all the additions. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA Nos. 6516 & 6517/Del/2025 Navneet Gutpa & Sons Rajan Gupta & Sons (AY: 2019-20) 5. Now at page No. 6-7 copy of satisfaction recorded in the case of assessee is provided wherein name of the group search is mentioned as Sushen Mohan Gupta and others and date of search is mentioned as 02.01.2020. Name and address of the other person to whom seized assets/papers belong is mentioned of present assessee. This satisfaction note is recorded on 29.04.2023 by the AO of present assessee. 6. Then at page No. 3 satisfaction note recorded by the AO searched person on 09.02.2023 is provided. 7. Thus, it is quite apparent that while assessment in case of Sushen Mohan Gupta was concluded on 30.09.2021 who happened to be the searched person the satisfaction note by the AO on searched person and the satisfaction note by the AO of assessee, both, have been recorded subsequent to the conclusion of assessment in the case of searched person on 03.09.2021. 8. In this context, ld. Counsel has drawn our attention to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-III Vs. M/s Calcutta Knitwears Ludhiana (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC), dated 12.03.2014 which has been also considered for issuing instructions by CBDT vide Circular No. 24/2015 date 31.12.2015 and the same provide that there has to be reasonable time for Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5 ITA Nos. 6516 & 6517/Del/2025 Navneet Gutpa & Sons Rajan Gupta & Sons (AY: 2019-20) recording satisfaction and in any case the same cannot be beyond the period of 4 months from the conclusion of assessment in the case of searched person. Ld. DR has failed to cite any legal proposition to the contrary. In the light of aforesaid, we are inclined to sustain the ground as raised. 9. We find that the case of assessee i.e. Navneet Gupta & Sons ITA No. 6516/Del/2025 is completely similar and the copies of satisfaction note as provided at page 3-5 & 6-7 have similar facts to that of Rajan Gupta & Sons. 10. In the light of aforesaid circumstances the assumption of jurisdiction by way of issuance of notice itself is vitiated. Consequently, we are inclined to sustain ground No. 3. The appeals are allowed and the impugned reassessment orders are quashed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.02.2026 Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) Sd/- (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 27.02.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 6 ITA Nos. 6516 & 6517/Del/2025 Navneet Gutpa & Sons Rajan Gupta & Sons (AY: 2019-20) 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "