Consolidated satisfaction note u/s 153C without year-wise incriminating material is invalid and vitiates jurisdiction for assessment proceedings.

ORDER

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The captioned appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi, 29 (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short), dated 10/07/2025 pertaining to Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2019-20 respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessment orders came to be passed for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2019-20u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short)orders dated 30/03/2023 by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred two Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 10/07/2025, dismissed the Appeals filed by the Assessee. As against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the captioned Appeals.

3. As the Appeals are filed by single Assessee, the captioned Appeals are heard together and decided in this common order.

4. Though the Assessee has raised several grounds of Appeals, we have heard only on Ground No. 2 of the Assessee’s Appeals. The Ld. Assessee's Representative contended that initiation of assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act for Assessment Years 2016-17and 2019-20 by recording consolidated satisfaction note for Assessment Years i.e. 2014-15 to 2020-21 are bad in law and liable to be quashed being proceedings initiated u/s 153C of the Act are 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 and sought for setting aside the respective Assessment Orders:

5. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the assessments have been framed and additions have 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. 2 of the Assessee in both the Appeals.

6. In rejoinder, the Ld. AR 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. Vs. ITO (supra) vide Judgment dated 09thApril, 2024 held that a consolidated satisfaction note without specific, year-wise incriminating material is fatal to jurisdiction and decided the issue in favour of the Assessee. Further, also contended that the SLP filed by the Revenue against the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Shaksham Commodities Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) has been dismissed, thus contended that the ratio laid down in the case of Shaksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) is having binding precedent.

7. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have gone through the satisfaction note u/s 153C of the Act dated 15/03/2022 placed on record by the Assessee. It is observed that a consolidated satisfaction note was recorded for assessment years 2014- 15 to 2020-21, wherein neither the AO has bifurcated the amounts nor year-wise additions pertaining to the assessee were identified, based on the said consolidated satisfaction, the assessment has been framed for the year under consideration. In an identical situation, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of SRS Panchratan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (supra), con