DCIT Vs Suprobha Behera (ITAT Delhi)
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) disposed of the Revenue’s appeals and the assessee’s cross-objections for Assessment Years (AYs) 2010-11 to 2013-14 arising from the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which had quashed assessments framed under Sections 153C/144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)’s decision on several grounds. It contended that the CIT(A) had wrongly relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in PCIT, Central-1, Delhi vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., despite the filing of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against that decision. The Revenue further argued that the ten-year block period under Section 153C should be computed from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the original search was conducted, particularly in view of the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2017. It also submitted that the judgments in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh and CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. dealt with the legal position prior to the 2017 amendment and were therefore distinguishable. Additionally, the Revenue asserted that the case involved organised tax evasion and accommodation entries falling within Exception (h) of Paragraph 3.1 of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 and warranted strict scrutiny.
The Tribunal identified the preliminary issue as whether the assessment years under consideration fell outside the permissible block period for initiating proceedings under Section 153C and, consequently, whether the assessments were valid.
The Tribunal noted that a search under Section 132 was conducted on 18.10.2019 in the Alankit Group of cases. During that search, certain documents belonging to, pertaining to, or relating to the assessee were found. These seized documents were handed over by the Assessing Officer of the searched person to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee on 24.06.2022.
Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh, the Tribunal held that, for the assessee, the relevant date of search under Section 153C became 24.06.2022, which fell in AY 2023-24, being the date on which the seized material was handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee. Accordingly, the ten-year block period had to be reckoned from AY 2023-24 and not from the date of the original search conducted in the case of the searched person.
The Tribunal observed that this issue was no longer res integra in view of the decision of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. Applying the principles laid down therein, the CIT(A) had computed the ten-year block period as extending from AY 2023-24 backwards to AY 2014-15.
Based on this computation, the Tribunal found that AY 2010-11 fell outside the ten-year block period prescribed under Section 153C. It therefore held that no valid assessment could have been framed for that assessment year. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), which had quashed the assessment as time-barred and void ab initio, and accordingly dismissed the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2010-11.
The Tribunal further observed that the same reasoning equally applied to AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, as all these assessment years also fell outside the ten-year block period. It therefore held that no proceedings under Section 153C could validly be initiated for any of these years and upheld the CIT(A)’s orders quashing the assessments.
Since the assessments themselves had been quashed, the Tribunal held that the remaining factual and legal grounds raised by the Revenue, as well as the various grounds raised by the assessee in its cross-objections, did not require adjudication and were left open.
Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed all the Revenue’s appeals and dismissed the assessee’s cross-objections as infructuous.
Cases Discussed
- PCIT, Central-1, Delhi vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court), ITA No. 52 of 2024 / 161 taxmann.com 160
- CIT vs. Jasjit Singh (Supreme Court), 2023 SCC Online SC 1265
- CIT vs. Jasjit Singh (Supreme Court), 458 ITR 437 (SC)
- CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (Delhi High Court), 2015 SCC Online Del 13085
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 2634 to 2637/Del/2026 filed by the revenue and CO. 226 to 22/Del/2026 filed by the assessee for AYs 201011 to 2013-14, arises out of the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 20.11.2025, 14.11.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 153C/144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2024, 31.03.2024 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal before us for the assessment year 2010-11:-
“Ground 1. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the judgement of Honable Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT, Central-1, Delhi vs Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 52 of 2024), even when the Revenue has filed a SLP against this decision of the Honable Delhi High Court.
Ground 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that 10 years. block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the relevant AY in which date 2 of satisfaction note drawn OR from the date of issue of Notice u/s 153C of the Act and not from the date of initiation of search even when Section 153C(1) of the Act clearly mentions that calculation of block period has to be done from the year of search.
Ground 3. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) was justified in relying was justified in holding that block periods for assessment u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the date of satisfaction note drawn OR date of Notice issued u/s 153C of the 3 Act, even when the position of law is clarified after the amendment introduced by Finance Act, 2017, that the block period of 6AYs and 10AYs as mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 153C and Section 153A have same meaning and have to be calculated from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted.
Ground 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) was justified in relying on the judgment of Honable Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jasjit Singh (2023 SCC Online SC 1265) and of Honable High Court in the case of CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2015 SCC Online Del 13085), even though the facts of the instant case are different from that of Jasjit Singh case and RRJ Securities case, since the decisions rendered by the Court in Jasjit Singh as well as in RRJ Securities had dealt with a pre-2017 position (i.e. for search conducted before 1st April, 2017) and hence are clearly distinguishable.
Ground 5. The present case involves organized tax evasion and accommodation entries, falling squarely within Exception (h) of 5 Para 3.1 of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the gravity of the case, requiring strict scrutiny rather than unwarranted relief.”
3. We find that the preliminary issue to be decided in these appeals is appeal is as to whether the years under consideration fall outside the block period and accordingly no assessment could be validly framed thereon in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The search operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 18.10.2019 in Alankit Group of cases. Certain documents belonging to/ pertaining to/ relating to assessee were found in the said search and accordingly the seized documents were handed over by the AO of the searched person to the AO of the assessee on 24.06.2022. Hence, the date of search qua the assessee becomes 24.06.2022 falling in AY 2023-24 in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Jasjit Singh reported in 458 ITR 437 (SC). Hence, the block period of 10 years need to be reckoned from AY 2023-24, being the year of search for the assessee and not based on the search date of originally searched person (i.e. Alankit Group). This issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd reported in 161 com 160 (Del HC). Applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the ld CIT(A) had computed the block period as under:-
| Computation of ten-years block period as provided u/s. 153Cr.w.s. 153A of the Act. | Number of Years |
| A.Y. 2023-24 | 1 |
| A.Y. 2022-23 | 2 |
| A.Y. 2021-22 | 3 |
| A.Y. 2020-21 | 4 |
| A.Y. 2019-20 | 5 |
| A.Y. 2018-19 | 6 |
| A.Y. 2017-18 | 7 |
| A.Y. 2016-17 | 8 |
| A.Y. 2015-16 | 9 |
| A.Y. 2014-15 | 10 |
5. Hence, the year under consideration i.e. AY 2010-11 would fall outside the block period and no valid assessment could be framed thereon u/s 153C of the Act. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) in quashing the assessment as time barred and void ab initio. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed for the AY 2010-11.
6. It could be seen that upto AYs 2013-14, no proceedings u/s 153C of the Act could be initiated on the assessee herein as it falls outside the block period of 10 years as per the aforesaid table. Hence the decision rendered by us hereinabove for AY 2010-11 shall apply mutatis mutandis for AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 also.
7. Accordingly, we hold that the learned CITA had rightly held that AYs 2010-11 to 2013-14 shall fall outside the block period of 10 years by following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare referred supra. Hence no valid assessment could be framed u/s 153C of the Act for the AYs 2010-11 to 2013-14 in the hands of the assessee herein and accordingly all the assessments framed are hereby quashed.
8. Since the entire assessments have been rightly quashed by the learned CITA, the other factual and legal grounds raised by the revenue and various grounds raised by the assessee in its cross objections need not be adjudicated and they are left open.
9. In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08/07/2026.
