IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 966/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) ITA No. 967/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) ITA No. 968/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2020-21)

Sh. RajanVerma Vs. DCIT

101, 1^st Floor, Laxmi Tower-II Central Circle-30 LSC, Pitampura, New Delhi SaraswatiVihar, North West Delhi-110034PAN:

ACTPV3583E Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Ved Jain, Adv. and Shri AyushGarg, CA Respondent Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT-DR by Date of Hearing 08.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM:

The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the common order date 28.01.2025 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], for Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 respectively. As the appeals are pertaining to single assessee,involving similar issues to be decided, above appeals are heard tougher and decided in this common order.

2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO who has passed the assessment orders u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) has not recorded the satisfaction note. Since, the assessment has been framed by the concerned AO without recording the satisfaction, the assessment orders for the Assessment Years under consideration are liable to quashed. The Ld. Counsel has relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions.

•

Ratio of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Saksham Commodities Ltd. &Ors dated 09.04.2024 and •

Ratio of decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Sri Anil Chowdhary dated 30.08.2024.

3. Per contra, the Ld. DR disputing the contentions of the Ld. Assessee's Representative,submitted that notices u/s 153C of the Act was issued by Sri Praduman Meena, ACIT Central circle-30, who was the Assessing Officer of the assessee. The said Sri Praduma Meena was also the Assessing Officer of the ‘Searched person’ (Sri Sanjay Jain). Hence, in this case the Assessing Officer of the “Searched person” and the “Other person” were one and the same. Therefore, in his capacity as the AO of the Searched person, Sri Meena had duly recorded the ‘Satisfaction note’ for initiating proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s 153A of the Act in the case of M/s Ranjan Builders, proprietary concern of the assessee Sri Ranjan Verma. Ld. Ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that in cases where the AO of the ‘Searched person’ and the ‘Other person’ are same, there is no requirement for recording two separate Satisfaction Notes. The Ld. DR placed his reliance on the judgment dated 05.03.2020 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Super Malls Pvt. Ltd.reported in [2020] 115 taxmann.com 105 (SC)and also reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Ganpati Fincap Services Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 692. Thus, submitted that the argument of the Ld. AR requested to be negated.

4. We have heard the parties and perused the materials available in record. In the present case, the notice u/s 153C of the Act has been issued by DCIT, Central Circle-30 on 17.10.2022. It is evident from the record that the jurisdiction in the case of the assessee has been transferred u/s 127 of the Act by PCIT-12 on 05.09.2022 itself from DCIT, Circle-61(1) to DCIT, Central Circle-30 which can be corroborated from page 191-192 of the PB. The satisfaction has been recorded by an Officer namely Sh. Praduman Meena, DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi in the capacity of AO of the ‘Searched person’. After recording the satisfaction, the DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi on

16.08.2022 handed over the seized material, satisfaction recorded and the punchanama to the jurisdictional AO of the assessee at that point of time i.e. time DCIT, Circle 61(1), Delhi. From the above said fact, it is found that the contention of the Revenue that at the time of recording the satisfaction by the DCIT, Central Ci