ZEAL IMPEX & TRADERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

ITA 666/DEL/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 40583 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: SALIL AGARWAL
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 119; 153C; 101

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.665 & 666/Del/2024 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Zeal Impex & Traders Pvt. Ltd., 24, Ashoka Chamber, Pusa Road, 5-B, Rajinder Park, Delhi Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi PAN: AAACZ1549C (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 665 & 666/Del/2024 for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s as many orders dated 22.12.2023 and 29.12.2023 passed in case nos. 29/10073/2011-12 and 29/10089/2012-13, Assessee by Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CA Sh. Madur Agarwal, Adv. Department by Sh. Sunil Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 04.04.2025 ITA Nos.665 & 666/Del/2024 2 | P a g e involving proceedings under section 153C/143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. It emerges at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of the validity of the impugned section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) assessments itself, both framed on 9th March, 2021. This is for the precise reason that the learned senior counsel informs us that the search in question herein in the case of Sh. Surendra Kumar Arya took place on 05.10.2017 followed by the corresponding section 153C notice(s) issued to the assessee on 14.11.2019. Mr. Agarwal then seeks to reckon the assessment year to be involved herein as per section 153A(1)(b) r.w.s. 1st and 2nd proviso and section 153C 1st proviso that “the reference to ………. such other person”. The assessee thereafter quotes case law CIT 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) that their lordships have already settled the issue that date of initiation of search in such an instance involving a third person other than the searched assessee has to ITA Nos.665 & 666/Del/2024 3 | P a g e be construed as the date of recording section 153C satisfaction only. 4. Learned counsel’s case accordingly is that the above statutory block of six assessment years; when counted from the clinching date of section 153C satisfaction on 14.11.2019 does not admittedly cover both these assessment years 2012-13 and 2013- 14 which renders the twin assessments herein as not sustainable in law. 5. The Revenue strongly contests the assessee’s instant first and foremost ground by quoting the statutory amendment in section 153A(1)(b) r.w. 1st and 2nd provisos thereto that the case very well falls in “and for the relevant assessment year or years” inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017. And that the search herein dated 05.10.2017 was conducted much after the above statutory amendment. The Revenue’s case in light thereof is that we ought to uphold the impugned section 153C assessment in very terms. 6. We find no reason to accept the Revenue’s foregoing contention. This is for the precise reason that the hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s latest decision in PCIT Vs. Ojjus ITA Nos.665 & 666/Del/2024 4 | P a g e Medicare (P) Ltd. (supra) has made it clear that incase, the Revenue seeks to place reference on the statutory amendment vide Finance Act, 2017 (supra), the same ought to be recorded in the relevant satisfaction note recorded by Assessing Officer under section 153C itself. We wish to clarify here that the assessee’s paper-book has placed on record the Assessing Officer’s impugned section 153C satisfaction (pages 1 – 4) wherein no such observation is found. That being the case, we conclude that the impugned section 153C assessments deserve to be quashed in very terms. 6. There is yet another clinching legal aspect, which hardly deserves to be ignored. A perusal of the above section 153C satisfaction makes it clear that the learned Assessing Officer had proceeded against the assessee on the ground that the seized documents belongs to the assessee, whereas the legislative amendment in section 153C(1)(b) of the Act stipulates that such a seized material could only “pertain” or “relate to” a third party since the corresponding connotation “belongs to” gets attracted only in case of “money, bullion, jewellery etc. This tribunal’s latest “Third Member” order in IT(SS)A Nos. 119 & 120/Pune/2022, Prashant Premchand Bafana Vs. ACIT, dated 28.02.2025 has already ITA Nos.665 & 666/Del/2024 5 | P a g e decided the instant latter issue in assessee’s favour and against the department. We thus hold that the impugned section 153C assessments do not deserve to be sustained on the instant latter aspect as well. Ordered accordingly. All other pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic. 7. These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 665 & 666/Del/2024 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th April, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 4th April, 2025. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "