Consolidated satisfaction note u/s 153C for multiple years without year-specific incriminating material is invalid and quashes assessment jurisdiction.

ORDER

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The captioned Appeal is filed by the Assessee challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) order dated 10/06/2025 for A.Y 2020-21.

2. There is a delay of 24 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condoning the delay contending that the reason for delay of 24 days in filing the present Appeal is not deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond the control of the Assessee as the Assessee was unaware of proceedings of Ld. CIT(A) and also not aware passing of the order impugned by the Ld. CIT(A).

3. We have heard on issue of limitation. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay filed by the Assessee, the delay of 24 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.

4. Brief facts of the case are that, a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was conducted in the case of Nitish Garg on 16/04/2019 and during the course of search proceedings, certain cash was found and seized from Nitish Garg. During the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Nitish Garg, it was submitted that out of cash amounting to Rs. 42,00,000/- found and seized on 16/04/2019, cash amounting to 22,00,000/- was belongs to his father Sh. Parveen Garg the Assessee herein. The A.O. of the search person has recorded his satisfaction on 29/09/2021 and handed over the seized material to the A.O. of the other person i.e. Assessee. Further, assessment proceedings have been initiated against the Assessee and an assessment order came to be passed u/s 153C r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 5,31,890/- by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 12,14,440/- against the returned income of Rs. 6,82,550/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29/03/2023, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10/07/2025 dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As again the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 10/07/2025, Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above.

5. Though the Assessee has raised several grounds of Appeal, we have heard only on Ground No. 3 of the Assessee. The Ld. Assessee's Representative contended that initiation of assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act for Assessment Year 2020-21 by recording consolidated satisfaction note for all Assessment Years i.e. 2014-15 to 2020-21 is bad in law and liable to be quashed being proceedings initiated u/s 153C is in violation of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, various Hon'ble High Courts and also the ratio laid down by the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel has also relied on the following judicial precedents:

6. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the assessment has been framed and addition has been made against the Assessee on the merits in order to recover the actual tax due. Further submitted that the satisfaction note can be recorded for multiple Assessment Years, which cannot be found fault with. To butter his submission, the Ld. Department's Representative placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indian National Congress vs. DCIT reported in 463 ITR 431 (Del), thus sought for rejecting the contention of the Ld. Assessee's Representative and prayed for dismissal of Ground No. 3 of the Assessee.

7. In rejoinder, the Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that after passing of the Judgment in the case of Indian National Congress (supra), the Jurisdictional High Court has examined very same issue in the case of Shaksham Commodities Ltd.