Gurucharan Singh Hora Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
153A vs 153C Demarcation Reaffirmed: Delhi ITAT Deletes Third-Party Cash Additions, Upholds Only Cash Found at Assessee’s Premises
Search Is Common, But Jurisdiction Isn’t: Cash Found Elsewhere? Revenue Took Wrong Route, Says ITAT- 153A Can’t Cover Third-Party Cash; Third-Party Evidence Needs 153C—
153A Has Limits—ITAT Draws Clear Line Between Assessee & Third Party- Search Additions Split: Third-Party Cash Gone, Own Cash Taxed
Delhi ITAT ‘G’ Bench in Gurucharan Singh Hora Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi [ITA No. 1806/Del/2025, AY 2020-21, order dated 31.12.2025] partly allowed Assessee’s appeal arising from assessment framed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3). Tribunal first rejected Assessee’s legal plea that assessment should have been a regular one u/s 143(3), noting that a second warrant of authorisation dated 19.11.2020 brought AY 2020-21 within block period of six years for s.153A. Challenge to jurisdictional transfer u/s 127(2) was also rejected as non-justiciable before ITAT.
On merits, Tribunal dealt with additions aggregating to ₹2.39 crore u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. It found that additions of ₹1,36,03,896 and ₹51,45,000 were based on evidence seized from premises of M/s Gentle Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., a third party, and not from Assessee’s possession. Following its own earlier order in Assessee’s case for AY 2019-20 and Delhi HC ruling in PCIT Vs. Anand Kumar Jain, Tribunal held that such additions could be made only by invoking s.153C and not u/s 153A, and accordingly deleted these additions. However, cash of ₹51,60,520 found and seized from Assessee’s own residential premises was upheld as unexplained, applying presumption u/s 292C, since Assessee failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation. Appeal was thus partly allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
