DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. MARIDU HARI DALMIA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of all these section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C assessments; framed on 19.05.2023, by the Assessing Officer in furtherance to the department’s section 132 search action in M/s Dalmia Group of cases. There is no dispute between the parties that all the three impugned assessment years herein A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 are “unabated” assessments as on the date of search wherein any addition in the assessee’s hands has to be made as to be based upon the contents of the corresponding seized material only as per PCIT Vs. Abhisar Builwell P. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC).

The above being the clinching factual position, there would be again no issue between the parties that the learned Assessing Officer herein had disallowed the assessee’s alleged losses u/s 94(vii) of the Act hereby holding the corresponding transactions with M/s JM Mutual Funds, as sham ones only followed by his yet another estimated actual profit; both involving varying sums, in these three assessment years. We wish to emphasize here that neither the impugned additions is based on the corresponding specific seized material as it forms a mandatory condition in light of their lordships decision. We thus find merit in the assessee’s legal arguments to quash all these assessments herein in very terms. Ordered accordingly. These three Revenue’s appeal fail accordingly.

All other pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.