High Court of Delhi · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3, New Delhi v. Olive Overseas Private Limited
ITA 780/2026 & ITA 783/2026 ·
Deletion of additions under Section 153A for unabated AYs 2012-13 and 2014-15 based solely on a standalone statement of a third-party accommodation-entry provider (Mr. Jindal) recorded under Section 132(4) without any corroborative incriminating material unearthed during search, following PCIT (Central)-3 v. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA 23/2021).
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
The Revenue filed ITA 780/2026 (AY 2012-13) and ITA 783/2026 (AY 2014-15) challenging the ITAT order dated 08.10.2024 in ITA Nos. 3310 & 3331/DEL/2023 deleting additions made under Section 153A on the basis of a statement of Mr. Jindal recorded under Section 132(4).
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
The Division Bench held that the issue is squarely covered against the Revenue by the coordinate bench decision in PCIT (Central)-3 v. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA 23/2021, arising out of the very same search statement of Mr. Jindal), which followed CIT v. Kabul Chawla (2015) 380 ITR 573 (Del) and CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 241 Taxman 199 (Del). While a statement under Section 132(4) has evidentiary relevance under the Explanation to Section 132(4), a standalone statement—especially one subsequently retracted or uncorroborated by any seized incriminating document—cannot form the sole basis for framing an addition under Section 153A in respect of completed assessments.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
Following PCIT (Central)-3 v. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), the High Court disposed of both appeals against the Revenue.
4. OUTCOME
Assessee - Both Revenue appeals (ITA 780/2026 & ITA 783/2026) dismissed/disposed of in favour of the assessee.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
A standalone third-party statement recorded under Section 132(4) (such as the Jindal statement) without independent corroborative incriminating documents seized during search cannot sustain a Section 153A addition for unabated assessment years.
Source and verification
7-page official High Court of Delhi judgment PDF (DLHC011107502025_1_2026-09-28.pdf, 213,424 bytes).
Original PDF: 7 pages · SHA-256: 45379d04821a2055205ec8066545e3923085669ddd4bbe83cc0583db1e335331
Supplied source-reviewed note retained; original bytes and identity validation checked in this release. Substantive re-review is not claimed for this record.
Applies Sections 132(4) and 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AYs 2012-13 and 2014-15. Income-tax Act, 2025 equivalence is not verified.
Full 7-page primary judgment PDF text read and verified page-by-page. Follows PCIT (Central)-3 v. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA 23/2021), CIT v. Kabul Chawla (2015) 380 ITR 573 (Del), and CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 241 Taxman 199 (Del).
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.