IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2021-22 DCIT, Vs. Sh. Aditya Agarwal, Delhi WZ-17, 3rd Floor, Meenakshi Garden, Shubhash Park, Delhi PAN: BCQPA0865C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by None Department by Sh. Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR Date of hearing 13.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 13.05.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1069943789(1), dated 25.10.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. Case call twice. None appears at the respondent-assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3. The Revenue’s instant appeal raises the following substantive grounds:

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the Addition of Rs. 1,75,50,000/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act..

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has crred in deleting the Addition of Rs. 3,05,500/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act.

3. Whether the computation of the block period under Sections 153C and

153A of the Income Tax Act. as interpreted by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., aligns with the legislative intent and procedural flexibility outlined in CBDT Circular No. 2/2018 dated

15 February 2018.

4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in relying on the judgements in the cases of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Jasjit Singh and ignoring the fact that these matters are currently pending adjudication in the Supreme Court. The revenue has filed SLP in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (SLP No.

2856/2024) and review application in the case of Jasjit Singh

5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) 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 receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized, by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person, even when this interpretation is contrary to the legislative intent since for the years after the search there can never be incriminating seized material and as such assessment in years cannot be made u/s 153C of the Act?

6. That the order of the CIT (A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law.

7. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.

8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s)

of appeal either on or before the final hearing of the appeal.

4. Learned departmental representative next invites our attention to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion quashing the impugned section 153C assessment itself as not sustainable in law, reading as under:

“8. I have carefully examined the assessment order and the written submissions of the appellant. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are decided as under.

9. The assessee through the ground of appeal no.2 has challenged the validity of the assessment proceedings and the consequent order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee contended that the assessment order for the impugned assessment year should have been passed u/s 153C of the Act since the year under consideration falls within the block period of six AYs from the date of recording satisfaction by the AO of the third party.

9.1 The assessee stated that the addition for the impugned assessment year was made based on What's App chats extracted from the mobile phone of the searched person, Sh. Parveen Kumar Jain. The search took place on 06.01.2021. The AO of the searched person recorded his satisfaction note on 27.06.2022 and handed over the relevant seized d