SRIKANTH BODAGALA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : None Assessee Represented by राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri D. Praveen, Sr. AR Department Represented by सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 25/03/2026 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 25/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement ORDER

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

1. “The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act dated 28.03.2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred by not considering the facts of the case and submissions made by the assessee against the assessment made u/s 153C by AO without any incriminating material relating to the assessee found in searched premises, which is against the provisions of law and principles of natural justice.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the AO has not given reasonable opportunity of being heard, to the assessee before passing the order u/s 153C of the Act dated 20.03.2023 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Ld. AO has issued a consolidated satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years which is invalid and the entire assessment proceedings are deemed to be invalid. 5. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the Ld. AO is bound to record a satisfaction note for each assessment year separately as per the provisions of section 153C of the income tax act 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO erred in invoking provisions of Sec 153C of the Act without there being any incriminating material belonging to the appellant found in searched premises, during the course of search at the premises of third person. 6.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred by not fairly appreciating the fact that no incriminating material relating to assessee was possessed by AO who did assessments u/s 153A of the Act and that assessment order passed on basis of satisfaction of that AO u/s 153C is not valid and requires to be quashed. 6.2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in properly appreciating the fact that the issuance of notice by AO u/s 153C has to be done before the completion of assessment u/s 153A of the Act in the searched case by the concerned Jurisdictional AO. 6.3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO erred in issuing the notice u/s 153C of the Act after a lapse of almost most three years from the date of issuance of notice u/s 153A of the Act, in the case of the searched party. 6.4. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in appreciating the legal position that before invoking the provisions of Section 153C of the Act, the AO of the searched party must record a conclusive satisfaction that documents seized does not belongs to or 3 Srikanth Bodagala vs. ACIT relates to the searched party, but related to the impugned party. 6.5. The Ld. CIT(A) also erred in properly appreciating the legal position that before invoking the provisions of section 153C of the Act, the A.O of the searched party must record a conclusive satisfaction u/s 153A of the Act that the documents seized belongs/relates to a person other than the searched person. 6.6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there is no proper recording of satisfaction note in the appellant's case for invoking the provisions of section 153C of the Act, and that the assessment made is vitiated by lawful infirmity and unsustainable under law. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs. 18,00,000/-, towards unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act. 7.1. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee was a salaried employee and the payments made are out of his past savings. 7.2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that out of cash payments made by the assessee, the amount received by him was out of hand loans received by him from his friends and families. 8. The assessee may add, alter, or modify or substitute any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”