Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi -15 v. Gaurav Aggarwal

$~96 & 106 INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+ITA 394/2025+ITA 404/2025+ITA 404/2025 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI -15.....AppellantThrough:Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. AshviniKr., Mr. Rishabh Nangia, Mr. Gibran,JSC.Through:Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. AshviniKr., Mr. Rishabh Nangia, Mr. Gibran,JSC. versus GAURAV AGGARWAL .....Respondent Through:Mr.Salil Aggarwal, Senior Advocatewith Mr. Madhur Aggarwal, Mr. UmaShankar, Mr. Mahir Aggarwal, Advs.with Mr. Madhur Aggarwal, Mr. UmaShankar, Mr. Mahir Aggarwal, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAOHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R10.09.2025 % CM APPL. 56935/2025 (Exemption)in ITA 394/2025 CM APPL. 57121/2025(Exemption) in ITA 404/2025 1.Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2.The applications are disposed of.2.The applications are disposed of. CM APPL. 56936/2025 (condonation of delay of 107 days in filing theappeal) in ITA 394/2025appeal) in ITA 394/2025 CM APPL. 56937/2025 (condonation of delay of 452 days in refiling the appeal) in ITA 394/2025 CM APPL. 57122/2025 (condonation of delay of 107 days in filing) inITA 404/2025ITA 404/2025 CM APPL. 57123/2025 (condonation of delay of 425 days in refiling) inITA 404/2025ITA 404/2025 3.For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing and filing of the appeals are condoned. 4.The applications are disposed of. ITA 394/2025 & ITA 404/2025 5.These appeals lay a challenge to an order dated 04.09.2023 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’). The appeals were filed by theappellant/revenue, whereby the Tribunal has decided the appeals / thecross-objections filed by the assessee by stating as under: “19.Assuming that the allegation of the Revenue that the impoundedseized documents pertain to the assessee, even then, if we look at thetransactions recorded in the alleged incriminating documents as exhibitedhereinabove, we see that none of the dates fall within the A.Ys underconsideration, which means that the alleged incriminating documents do notpertain to the A.Ys under consideration.20.Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court inthe case of Singhad Educational Society 378 ITR 84 which has been affirmedby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 397 ITR 344 squarely apply as no documentpertaining to the A.Ys under consideration was found.21.Therefore, initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act qua theSatisfaction Note mentioned elsewhere is unsustainable in law. On the givenfacts in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case ofSinghad Educational Society [supra] affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court[supra], the findings of the ld. CIT(A) read as under : “6 In view of the aforesaid, it is held that addition made by theAO is beyond the scope of section 153C of the Act, as page No. 13and 14 of Annexure A - 13 found from the premises of Shri. SantLal Aggarwal is a rough document and no corroborative materialwas brought on record to suggest that any such alleged advanceof Rs. 35.252 crores was given. Even otherwise, no documentpertaining to this year was found. As such, in any case, initiationof the proceeding for this year is unsustainable in law.Accordingly this ground of the appeal of the appellant isallowed.” 22.We could not find any reason to interfere with the above findings ofthe ld. CIT(A). Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed and the crossobjections become infructuous.23.Before parting, the ld. DR has placed reliance on several judicialdecisions in the form of synopsis, but none of the decisions is on the issuesbefore us as all the decisions are relevant to reopening of assessment u/s 147of the Act, therefore, not found to be relevant. 24.In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No. 6202 &6203/DEL/2017 as well as the cross objections of the assessee in CO No. 11and 12/DEL/2021 are dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 04.09.2023.” 6.Suffice to state that the satisfaction note was issued under Section 153C 22.We could not find any reason to interfere with the above findings ofthe ld. CIT(A). Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed and the crossobjections become infructuous.23.Before parting, the ld. DR has placed reliance on several judicialdecisions in the form of synopsis, but none of the decisions is on the issuesbefore us as all the decisions are relevant to reopening of assessment u/s 147of the Act, therefore, not found to be relevant. 24.In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No. 6202 &6203/DEL/2017 as well as the cross objections of the assessee in CO No. 11and 12/DEL/2021 are dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 04.09.2023.” 6.Suffice to state that the satisfaction note was issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the concerned Assessing Officer (‘AO’) which reads as under: “During the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Sh. Sant LaiAggarwal, it was noticed that during the search and seizure operation u/s132 undertaken on 14.09.2010 in the case of Sh. Sant Lai Aggarwal at D-31,Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi, documents incriminating to Sh. SantLai Aggarwal Prop.M/s Gaurav Enterprises were found and seized from theabove premise. Page no. 13 and 14 of Annexure A-13 were seized. The seizeddocuments contain details of transactions amounting to Rs.32.252 crores.During the course of recording of statement, these documents wereconfronted to Sh. Sant Lai Aggarwal. Sh. Sant Lai Aggarwal, in answer toquestion No. 15, admitted that the payments recorded on these two pageswere made in cash to farmers for procurement of paddy and surrendered thisamount of Rs.32.252 crores in the hands of M/s Gaurav Enterprises, aproprietorship concern of his son Gaurav Aggarwal as these payments weremade by Gaurav Aggarwal. 2.Statement of Sh. Gaurav Aggarwal was recorded. In anwer to Q. No.2, Sh. Gaurav Aggarwal confirmed that the payments were made by him asadvance to farmers for pronouncement of paddy in case. He offered it fortaxation in the name of Gaurav Enterprises. 3.Later on, the disclosure was retracted merely by filing two lettersdated 20.09.2010 on the ground that the surrender was not voluntary and itwas taken under pressure.dated 20.09.2010 on the ground that the surrender was not voluntary and itwas taken under pressure. 4.However, the fact remains that these documents were found andseized during the course search and seizure operation u/s 132 of theIncome-tax Act 1961. The retraction is merely after thou… and is notsupported by any evidence to show the exact nature of transaction. Sh.Saurav Aggarwal categorically admitted in his statement recorded duringsearch operation that the documents contained payments in cash and wasunable to adduce evidence to show that the same were recorded in the booksof accounts. 5.The cash of Sh. Gaurav Aggarwal has been centralized to this Circlevide letter F.No. CIT-IX/ITO(H.Q)/127/2011-12/1556 dated 16.11.2011.I am therefore satisfied that the documents referred to above belongto Sh. Gaurav Aggarwal, warranting action u/s 153C in his case.” 7.It is noted that the amount of Rs.32.252 crores of which a reference hasbeen made in the satisfaction note as depicted at Pages 50-51 of the impugnedjudgment primarily pertains to the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2011-12. 8.The subject matter of the appeals is in respect of AYs 2009-10 and2010-11 and it is in that sense, the Tribunal has in Paragaraphs no.19-24stated that the transactions which have been recorded are for the dates whichdo not fall within the AYs under consideration, which means that the allegedincriminating documents do not pertain to the AYs under consideration, i.e.,AY 2009-10 and 2010-11. 9.It is on this basis the Tribunal has dismissed the revenue’s appeals aswell as the cross-objections of the assessee. 7.It is noted that the amount of Rs.32.252 crores of which a reference hasbeen made in the satisfaction note as depicted at Pages 50-51 of the impugnedjudgment primarily pertains to the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2011-12. 8.The subject matter of the appeals is in respect of AYs 2009-10 and2010-11 and it is in that sense, the Tribunal has in Paragaraphs no.19-24stated that the transactions which have been recorded are for the dates whichdo not fall within the AYs under consideration, which means that the allegedincriminating documents do not pertain to the AYs under consideration, i.e.,AY 2009-10 and 2010-11. 9.It is on this basis the Tribunal has dismissed the revenue’s appeals aswell as the cross-objections of the assessee. 10.Given the fact scenario, which we have noted from the impugned orderand after hearing the submissions advanced by Mr. Puneet Rai, learned SeniorStanding Counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Salil Aggarwal, learnedSenior Counsel for the respondent/assessee, we find no fault, insofar as theimpugned order passed by the Tribunal is concerned, as such no substantialquestion of law arises for consideration in these appeals, accordingly, theseappeals are dismissed. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 tg VINOD KUMAR, J