$~33, 34 & 36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011107422025 (33)+ ITA 758/2026, CM APPLs. 65301-05/2026 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC with Ms. Easha Gurung. versus 3D TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: None. # CNR No. DLHC011107432025 (34)+ ITA 759/2026, CM APPLs. 65318-22/2026 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC with Ms. Easha Gurung. versus 3D TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: None. # CNR No. DLHC011107442025 (36)+ ITA 761/2026, CM APPLs. 65334-38/2026 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC with Ms. Easha Gurung. versus 3D TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR O R D E R % 22.09.2026 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 11:41:41 1. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue-appellant draws the attention of this Court to the Order dated 18.09.2026 passed in ITA No. 744/2026, whereby an appeal involving the same question arising in the case of the assessee was considered and disposed of. 2. The said order is reproduced and reads as under: “1. The appeal in hands is directed against order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi “E” Bench: New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). 2. The question before us, in short is, as to whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) holding, inter alia, that the satisfaction note does not clearly mention that the incriminating material relates to which year. 3. While allowing the assessee's appeal in paragraph no.13.1, the Tribunal has recorded thus: “13.1. It is evident from the 'Satisfaction Note that the alleged undisclosed income is not identifiable with any assessment year. In the absence of any particular of incriminating material available with reference to AYs specified in the 'Satisfaction Note', such obscure and vague 'Satisfaction Note' does not entitle the AO to assume jurisdiction under s. 153C of the Act. Neither the income assessed under s. 153C of the Act appears to relate to any incriminating material nor the so called incriminating material has been shown to be attributable to different AYs 2010-11 to 2015-16. The plea of the assessee towards non-maintainability of jurisdiction under s. 153C in such facts is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment in Saksham Commodities Ltd.(supra).” 4. The aforesaid view of the Tribunal is based on judgment of this Court rendered in case of Saksham This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 11:41:41 Commodities Limited v. Income Tax Officer reported in (2024) 161 taxmann.com 485. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the satisfaction note, which has been reproduced by the Tribunal at page no.4 of its order. The perusal of the satisfaction note so reproduced clearly shows that the Assessing Officer had not recorded any satisfaction regarding the relatability of the incriminating material qua particular assessment year. 6. The satisfaction note simply records seizure of hard disk and that the proceedings under section 153C of the Act of 1961 is to be initiated for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16, without indicating anything as to how the material is relevant for those assessment years. 7. We, therefore, do not find any merit and substance in the appeal so filed by the Revenue, as the issue in hands is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in the case of Saksham Commodities Ltd. (supra). 8. The appeal is, therefore, rejected. 9. All pending applications are also disposed of accordingly.” 3. The issue arising in the present appeals is admittedly covered by the aforesaid decision dated 18.09.2026 in ITA No. 744/2026. Consequently, the present appeals are also disposed of in terms thereof. 4. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/bs/sm This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 11:41:41