IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, G: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 4044 & 4045/Del/2025 [Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2015-16]

Neha Gupta, Assistant Commissioner of BT-54, Income Tax, Shalimar Bagh, Vs Central Circle-32, Delhi-110088. Delhi-110055.

PAN- AHHPG5845R Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv. and Shri Utkarsa Gupta, Adv.

Revenue by Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Date of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 14.01.2026

ORDER

PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, These two appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the common order dated 28.04.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, New Delhi-110055 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)], pertaining to Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16, arising out of respective Assessment orders both dated 31.03.2024 passed under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the ACIT, Central Circle-32, Noida (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’). Since the issues involved in both the appeals of the same assessee are related, they are disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience and brevity.

1.1 The assessee has raised several grounds of appeal but we take up the Ground no. 1 of both the appeals, which are identical and challenges the proceedings being time barred which goes to the root of the matter.

1. That the notice issued under Section 153C of the Income TaxAct, 1961 ('the Act'), the assessment order passed under Section 153C of the Act and the additions/disallowances made therein are illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, barred by time limitation and not in accordance with provisions of the Act.

2. The Ld. AR relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vartex Image Creation Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 26 & Anr. W.P. (C) 2646/2024 & CM Appl. 10878/2024 submitted that in this case the proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 153C of the Act dated 29.06.2022 on the basis of satisfaction note dated 23.06.2022 for both the AYs. 2014- 15 and 2015-16, are barred by limitation and are bad in law. The Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above cited case had relied upon the decision of the same court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. [2024 SCC Online Del 2439]. In this regard, the assessee furnished a chart which is reproduced as under:

“

”

2.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO dated 23.06.2022 for A.Ys. 2014-15 and 2015-16 makes it evident that the said assessment years fall beyond the window of six preceding AYs' as provided under Section 153C of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Satisfaction Note dated 23 June

2022 recorded further indicates that the income which is alleged to have escaped assessment for the A.Ys. 2014-15 and 2015-16 does not exceed INR 50 lakhs. The Ld. AR further submitted that the satisfaction note has also failed to record that the escaped income is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs or more cumulatively for the A.Ys. 2014-15 and 2015-16 and thereby fulfilling the threshold requirement as prescribed by the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A. In view of these facts, the Ld. AR submitted that on similar facts the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above cited decisions had quashed the similar notice issued u/s 153C of the Act.

3. The Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the orders of the authorities below and the amendment in section 153C of the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017.

4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In this case, a search and seizure proceeding u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on the Alankit Group, Shri Alok Kumar Agarwal his son Shri Ankit Agarwal and some of the close associates and key employees of Sh. Alok K Agarwal on 18.10.2019. The AO had noted that d