ITA/746/2026 of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI Vs 3D TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED on 18 September 2026

O R D E R

%

18.09.2026

1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Benches “E”: New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) proposing the following questions of law: A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. ITAT erred in holding that block periods for assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, have to be calculated from the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized, by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person and not from the date of initiation of search by wrongly interpreting the provisions of Section 153C as the first proviso to Section 153C specifically deals only with the abatement of proceedings (as referred to second proviso of Section 153A)? B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT erred in holding that the assessment proceedings for AY 2016-17 should have been conducted under Section 153C instead of Section 143(3)? C) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT erred in quashing the assessment solely on a jurisdictional Technicality, when the Respondent had participated in the proceedings without objection, thereby attracting the statutory curative effect of Sections 292B and 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? D) Whether the impugned order passed by Ld. ITAT is perverse both in law and on facts?

2. While allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee, the Tribunal has held that the Assessing Officer had erred in passing the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) for assessment year under consideration, 2016-17; and he ought to have taken recourse to Section 153C of the Act of 1961, because the relevant date was 23.03.2018. According to the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer could have opened assessment of assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 under Section 153C of the Act of 1961 and it was only for assessment year 2018-19, he could take recourse to Section 143(3) of the Act of 196, as the same would have fallen beyond period of six years.

3. While doing so, the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi).

4. The reasons recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph no.3 & 7 are totally in line with the view, which this Court had taken in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

5. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel, could not point out any factual difference which could persuade convinced us to take any view other than what the Tribunal has taken. We, therefore, do not find any merit or substance in the present appeal.

6. The present appeal is hereby dismissed.

7. All pending applications are also disposed of accordingly.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. SEPTEMBER 18, 2026/nk