DCIT Vs Arun Gupta (ITAT Delhi)
Revenue filed appeals against CIT(A)’s order deleting protective additions made in the hands of Arun Gupta. AO had made protective additions in Assessee’s hands & substantive additions in M/s Transline Technologies Ltd. Assessee relied on Tribunal’s order in DCIT Vs Transline Technologies Ltd. (ITA 3693/Del/2025, order dated 07.11.2025), wherein Tribunal—following Delhi HC judgment in Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd (161 taxmann.com 160)—held that AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 fall beyond the permissible 10-year block u/s 153C, reckoned from the date of satisfaction recorded by AO of non-searched person (17.02.2022). Tribunal noted that the same facts & legal position apply here as well. Since the relevant AYs lie outside the ten-year limit, assumption of jurisdiction itself was invalid. CIT(A)’s order cancelling the assessments was upheld & Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The captioned appeals are filed by the Revenue against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ for short), New Delhi dated 28/02/2025for the Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012- 13 respectively.
2. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the A.O. made protective addition in the hands of the Assessee and substantive addition has been made in the hands of M/s Transline Technologies Ltd. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal inthe case of DCIT Vs. M/s Transline Technologies Ltd. in ITA No. 3693/Del/2025 and the other connected matters vide order dated 07/11/2025, held that the assessment years under consideration therein i.e. Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2012-13 are beyond the period of 10 years and accordingly, set aside the assessment orders therein by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2024) 161 taxmann. Com 160 Delhi dated 03/04/2024. Therefore, submitted that the ratio laid down in the case of Ojjus Medicare (supra) and by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Transline Technologies Ltd. (supra), squarely applicable, thus sought for dismissal of the Appeals of the Revenue.
