The Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Smt. Geetanjali Bhayana, ITA No. ITA No.2227, 2228 & 2252/Del/2025, A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21, Held that where the search was conducted on the third party premises and the seized material handed over to the assessing officer of the assessee on 03.12.2021 it treated as the “date of search” for the assessee and Harigovind v. ACIT, held that section 153C could not be invoked for searches initiated on or after 01.04.2021, so proceedings should instead have been taken, if at all, under the reassessment provisions.
Secondly, relying on Saksham Commodities (Delhi HC), the Tribunal also found the satisfaction note defective because it did not record that the seized diary had a bearing on determination of the assessee’s total income.
Thus, the impugned notice issued under section 153C is liable to be quashed.
The Hon,ble ITAT in the case of Smt. Lalita Agarwal, ITA No. 5668/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2012-13], held that the Scrutiny Notices u/s 143(2) for Five Assessment Years as alleged to have been issued by the revenue MANUALLY are not Valid Notices u/s 143(2) since the same are not in conformity with the requirements of CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 19/2029 dated 14 Aug 2019 as per which a notice u/s 143(2) can be issued Manually ONY AFTER recording reasons for issuing the same manually and ONLY AFTER PRIOR APPROVAL OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER / DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX for issuing the notice u/s 143(2) manually. As noted by ITAT, the revenue could not establish before ITAT that manual notices u/s 143(2) as alleged to have been issued for Five Years have been regularized by way of recording reasons and after prior written approval of the Chief Commissioner / Director General of Income Tax. Hence ITAT was of considered opinion that assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 for re-assessment proceedings are VITIATED in the absence of valid notice u/s 143(2) & the assessment proceedings u/s 147 quashed as void ab initio. 5 appeals of assessee allowed & 2 appeals of revenue dismissed
Recently, in the case of ACIT Vs Kaashvi Industries, ITA 9391/Del/2019, dt. 30.09.2025, the Delhi bench of the Tribunal, relying on the decisions in the case of RRJ Securities Limited (Delhi HC)], Ganapathy Fincap Services Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC) and in the case of Gopi Aparments (Allahabad HC), confirmed the deletion of additions made under s.153C, finding the seized incriminating documents did not pertain to each assessment year sought to be reopened.
Honble Delhi ITAT in the case of ACIT, Central Circle-13,
New Delhi vs Double Plus Software Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 4745/Del/2018, dt. 16.09.2025, The Tribunal held that once an addition has been made and upheld in the hands of the original contributors, the same addition cannot be sustained again in the hands of the recipient company, applying the doctrine of double taxation. The Tribunal emphasized that amounts cannot be taxed twice for the same transaction in the same assessment year.
Honble Delhi ITAT in the case of Karan Motors Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT, Central Circle-27, New Delhi, ITA No. 168/DEL/2025, dt. 29.08.2025, The Tribunal held that without written authorization under section 120(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) cannot act as an Assessing Officer (AO). Despite multiple chances, the Revenue did not produce any such order, leading the Tribunal to presume that no authorization existed. This failure in procedure and transparency—highlighted by the assessee’s repeated attempts to access basic jurisdictional documents—was deemed a violation of fairness. Citing Nasir Ali v. Addl. CIT, the Tribunal confirmed that mere administrative transfer or general instructions do not substitute for the mandatory written authorization under section 120(4)(b). Since no jurisdiction was properly established, the assessment order passed by the ACIT was declared void ab initio, making it illegal and without effect.