Vinay Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee’s appeal and quashed the assessment framed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) holding that the AO had assumed jurisdiction on the basis of an invalid satisfaction note. The Tribunal observed that the satisfaction note did not clearly identify seized material belonging to the assessee, failed to specify assessment-year-wise entries, and was based largely on appraisal report and external information rather than seized documents themselves. Further, a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple years and absence of clear linkage between seized material and the assessee rendered the proceedings legally untenable.
Relying on decisions including DCIT vs Sunil Kumar Sharma and co-ordinate bench rulings, the Tribunal held that jurisdiction u/s 153C was invalid and the entire search assessment stood void ab initio. Consequently, additions of ₹4.75 crore u/s 68 and estimated commission u/s 69C were not adjudicated on merits, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 26.03.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-24, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-24/10750/2015-16 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 28.12.2021 passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17.
