आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ (cid:1)यायपीठ, चे(cid:9)ई।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI (cid:1)ी एबी टी. वक(cid:10), (cid:11)ाियक सद(cid:17) एव ं

(cid:1)ी जगदीश, लेखा सद(cid:12) के सम(cid:21)

BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.899/Chny/2025 िनधा(cid:14)रणवष/(cid:14) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The DCIT, v. Subramaniam Kathiresan, Central Circle-2(2), No.6, Chennai. A.V. Krishnaswamy Street, Janaki Nagar, Alwar, Tirunagar, Tiruvallur-600 087.

[PAN: AEEPK 6913 N (अपीलाथ(cid:22)/Appellant) ((cid:23)(cid:24)यथ(cid:22)/Respondent)

Department by : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT Assessee by : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &

Mr. S. Girish Kumar, Advocate सुनवाईक(cid:28)तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणाक(cid:28)तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025 आदशे / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Chennai-19, dated 17.01.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2014-15.

2. The main grievance of the Revenue is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the additions made by the AO on merits as well as by upholding the legal issue raised by the assessee. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is noted to have raised the legal issue relating to AY 2014- 15 that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) is bad in law since the ‘Satisfaction Note’ prepared by the AO before assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law by mainly relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 84 taxmann.com 290 (SC) and other case laws cited therein. Since Revenue has assailed the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) (supra), and since the legal issue challenging the jurisdiction of the AO to assume the jurisdiction u/s.153C of the Act has been challenged, we will deal with first.

3. Brief facts relevant to the legal issue are that search u/s.132 of the Act took place in the premise of Shri G.N. Anbuchezhian on 05.02.2020 [year of search was 2020-21]. Based on the materials found from the premise of the searched person [Shri G.N. Anbuchezhian], the AO has initiated proceedings u/s.153C of the Act against the “other person” i.e. assessee in this case, by drawing the ‘Satisfaction Note’ on 18.11.2022, because of which, the reference of the search year in the case of the assessee for the purpose of section 153C/153A as per the first proviso to section 153C of the Act would be deemed to be AY 2023-24 and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Jasjit Singh (SLPC) No.6644 of 2016 dated 26.09.2023. Therefore, when AY 2023-24 is considered as the year in which date of search happened, AY 2014-15 is the 9^th year and in such a scenario, according to the assessee, the AO had to record his satisfaction (which includes the additional requirement of law) that he has in his possession material/evidence which reveal that income represented in the form of asset worth Rs.50 lakhs have escaped assessment; and then only he would be empowered to even issue notice for 7^th to 10^th year which essential condition precedent, according to the assessee, is absent in this case as evident from perusal of the “satisfaction-note” prepared by the AO to assume jurisdiction in the case of assessee/third party u/s.153C of the Act (infra).

4. Explaining the scheme of arrangement of sections u/s.153C of the Act, the Ld.AR referred to Section 153C & 153A of the Act and submitted that the AO having jurisdiction under the said section is empowered to assess or reassess the total income of six (6) years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. And that from 01.04.2017, the power to assess/reassess the income was expanded from six (6) to ten (10) years and t