GOVIND CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

The addition is made as undisclosed income under section 69A/69B on account of unaccounted investment in land situated at Dhokawade, where in addition has been made in the hands of following assesse and therefore all these appeals are being combined together: Assessee AY Corporation 2015-16 3230/Mum/2025 Govind Corporation 2021-22 3231/Mum/2025

For the sake of convenience, the appeal for the A.Y. 2015- 16 i.e. of Govind Corporation is taken up first as lead matters and most of our finding given herein will apply mutatis mutandis in the appeals for other assessment year also. This appeal arises against order of ld. CIT(A) dated 20/03/2025. Finding of the Assessing Officer 4. The controversy, in essence, centers upon additions made on the basis of certain excel sheets found during the course of search, the evidentiary worth of the statements recorded under section 132(4), and the consequential additions of unexplained investments under section 69A/69B of the Act.

Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a part of the Sekseria Group of Companies. Assessee is a private limited company. The Company has been aggregating land parcels in and around Dhokawade for over a decade.

On 7th October, 2021, the Investigation Wing of the Department conducted a search and survey action under section 132 of the Act at the premises of the Sekseria Group of Companies which included the assessees situated on the 4th Others Govind Corporation & Others Floor of Seksaria Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai. The search extended over multiple days and encompassed various group entities and individuals associated with the Seksaria Group and their business concerns. During the course of the operation, certain Excel- based management information sheets were found and seized. These documents, according to the Department, contained notings suggestive of cash investment for acquisition of land at Dhokawade. Statements of Mr. Nandkumar Kudilal Seksaria (NKS), and Mr. Tarun Sekseria (TNS) were recorded contemporaneously and in the days following the search, forming the bedrock of the Assessing Officer‟s inference regarding unaccounted income in the case of Assessee.

In the case of Assessee, the Assessing Officer drawing primarily upon these excel statements which were found and seized on 07/10/2021 and based on the statements of TNS and NKS made additions under section 69A/69B 8. The statements recorded during the course of the search are as under: Sr. Deponent Statement Statement Q.Nos No. Recorded dated at 1 Tarun Sakseria 09.10.2021 Q1-Q 31 Nandkumar building, Seksaria Marine (TNS) Drive, Mumbai- 400020 2. Nandkumar Sakseria 11.10.2021 Q.1 to Q.30 Kudilal Building, Others Govind Corporation & Others Seksaria nagindas (NKS) master Road, Mumbai 400001. 3. Nandkumar Air India 04.04.2022 Q.1 to Q.12 Kudilal Building, Seksaria (Income (NKS) Tax)

The learned CIT(A), after a detailed consideration of the rival submissions and the seized material, partly accepted the assessee‟s alternate contentions that, if at all any cash was invested, it was invested by Estate and therefore the benefit of telescoping was allowed. The CIT(A) however ignored the fact that the statements of TNS had been debunked by NKS and therefore were contradictory and further ignored the fact that the statement of TNS and NKS were retracted. The CIT[A] has also not pondered over the AOs action in not obtaining any third-party confirmations. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, confirmed the addition of that in principle the AO was right in making an addition under section 69A/69B but since the Others Govind Corporation & Others assessee had explained the source, he has allowed telescoping to the extent of the addition of Rs.6,70,174 for AY 2015-16 13. The Assessee have contested the additions which were confirmed by the CIT(A) either substantively or in principle .

Similar addition has been made in in other assessment years and the summary of additions which have been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on the same reasoning which has been contested by the assessee before this Tribunal are as under:- Sr.No Particulars AY 69A/69B 1 Govind Corporation 2021-22 12,91,971 2 EI Beneficiary Trust 2016-17 1,67,540 3 EI Beneficiary Trust 2017-18 5,02,631 4 EI Beneficiary Trust 2018-19 3,90,935

Apart from the aforesaid grounds on merits of the addition, the Assessee has also raised legal grounds regarding the validity of the Notice under section 148 on the Assessment Order and defective notice issued under section 148. Submissions of the A.R: 16. The matter was argued at length before us. The Assessees have also filed detailed written synopsis covering the facts and various arguments made before us and a paper book Others Govind Corporation & Others containing a Excel sheets pertaining to purchase of land at Dhokawade and the statement of TNS/NKS as also other relevant documents, which were relied upon during the hearing. Copies of retraction statements are also filed.

Before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the assessee opened his arguments with characteristic precision, asserting that the entire assessment proceedings were vitiated by a fundamental misconception of fact and law. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had elevated mere notings in a an excel sheet into conclusive proof of undisclosed income, without undertaking the most rudimentary verification or establishing any nexus between such notings and real-world transactions. The so-called incriminating excel sheet, he stressed, was merely a statement to analyze the increase in the market values in these land parcels prepared by PDG, who was the land aggregator and this fact was specifically mentioned by NKS and was not at all cash paid by the assesse for purchase of these lands as mentioned by TNS in his statement. The AR also mentioned that TNS „s in his statement has stated that he was not aware of the quantum of „cash‟ generated and this would be explained by NKS and therefore the statement of NKS prevails over the statement of TNS. NKS in his statement has clearly stated that the statement was prepared by PDG stating the increase in market value of these lands. Consequently, the AR contended that in the absence of corroborative material or supporting evidence the reliance placed by the Assessing Officer upon these excel sheets and the contradictory Others Govind Corporation & Others statements of TNS and NKS , was wholly misplaced and is unsustainable in law.

The AR further pointed out that the only foundation on which the Assessing Officer sought to ascribe meaning to these noting in the excel sheet was the Statement of TNS recorded on 09/10/2021. The learned counsel invited our attention to the transcript of TNS‟s statement to demonstrate that it was riddled with conjecture and bereft of any factual basis. He emphasized that the Assessing Officer‟s action in cherry picking a part of the statement of TNS was an exercise that was, in his words, “factually perverse and legally impermissible.”

The learned counsel also reiterated his submission that the statement of TNS was of no real consequence as it had been categorically denied by NKS the principal person in charge of the company, in his statement dated 4th October, 2022 in Q no 11 where has stated that TNS had been suffering from various ailments and he had assigned him the job of coordinating with PDG for land and most importantly the figures in the excel sheets which were stated to be „cash‟ was in fact a comparison of the cost and projections of the profits[ market values] in these lands prepared by PDG. The AR also contended that in any case NKS had stated that ‘occasionally some cash may have come and given to PDG’ which does not mean that all the figures under Col „B‟ are cash as presumed by the AO.

The AR pointed out that the AO did not bother to analyze and evaluate other entries in the excel sheet and merely considered the amount mentioned in excel sheet as cash investment by relying on the uncorroborated statement of TNS which was later retracted.

The AR also made without prejudice submission that AO has cherry picked the statement of TNS to suit his narrative. Had the statement been fully considered, the AO would have been required to take cognizance of the fact that the cash investment was not made by the assesse and therefore no Others Govind Corporation & Others addition could have been made in its hands. The AR vehemently argued that the Assessee has no capacity to generate cash and that the cash was never invested by the Assessee. The AR also pointed out that these facts have been duly accepted by the AO and CIT(A). 22.1. The AR also pointed out that this statement does not mention the years to which it pertains and the action of the AO to extrapolate the total to various assessment years on the basis of the amounts paid by Cheque is devoid of any logic or legal sanctity. 22.2. The learned Authorized Representative continued his submissions with a meticulous reference to jurisprudence, weaving together a formidable chain of precedents that underscored the impermissibility of making additions solely on the strength of uncorroborated and subsequently retracted statements. He first drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [(2020) 261 Taxman 358 (Bom)], where the Court had categorically held that a statement recorded during search cannot be relied upon as conclusive evidence unless supported by independent material. In that case, as in the present one, the Assessing Officer had based additions merely on the confession of a third party without any corroboration, which was later retracted. The High Court, affirming the Appellate Tribunal, ruled that when a statement is retracted and no other evidence is adduced, such a statement cannot, by itself, justify the addition. The learned counsel submitted that the ratio of this judgment was directly applicable to the Others Govind Corporation & Others present facts, where the Assessing Officer, resting solely on the statements of TNS, had proceeded to frame the assessment without any verification or corroboration from the alleged payers or any independent third-party evidence.

The learned AR next placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in Shree Ganesh Trading Co. v. CIT [(2012) 214 Taxman 262 (Jharkhand)], wherein it was held that though a statement recorded under section 132(4) constitutes evidence, its reliability and probative worth depend on the surrounding circumstances and corroboration. The Court observed that a bald statement, made without contemporaneous recovery of cash or assets and later retracted, could not be used to fasten liability. Drawing a parallel, the learned counsel emphasised that in the assessee‟s case, no incriminating cash or valuables had been discovered in the course of search; yet, the Assessing Officer had proceeded as though the excel sheet were self- proving instruments of truth. Such an approach, he argued, stood condemned by judicial authority.

The learned counsel further fortified his argument by citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Kailashben Chokshi v. CIT [(2010) 328 ITR 411 (Guj.)], where it was held that an admission recorded under section 132(4), if retracted, cannot form the sole basis for addition unless supported by corroborative material. The High Court noted that statements extracted under stressful or coercive circumstances, particularly during search at odd hours, often lack voluntariness and hence must be treated with Others Govind Corporation & Others circumspection. The learned AR submitted that this principle had been reiterated in several later pronouncements, including by the coordinate benches of the Tribunal, and represents the settled position of law that mere confessional statements, in the absence of corroboration, are insufficient to sustain additions. He also drew our attention to the Mahadhan Agritech Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 2227/Mum/2024) decision, wherein this very Bench had, following the dictum of Harjeev Aggarwal (Delhi High Court) and Jagdish prasad Joshi (Supreme Court), held that retracted statements under section 132(4) lose all probative value unless independently substantiated by evidence.

The learned counsel, to reinforce the argument, also referred to the official guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) itself specifically, Instruction No. 286/2/2003 dated 10th March 2003 and the subsequent Circular F. No. 286/98/2013 dated 18th December 2014 both of which explicitly caution the Department against obtaining confessions of undisclosed income during search or survey operations. These circulars direct that assessments must be founded upon material evidence rather than unverified admissions. The counsel submitted that these instructions, being binding on the revenue authorities under section 119 of the Act, constitute a clear administrative mandate that confessional statements, without corroboration, are not to be made the sole foundation of assessment. He therefore urged that the action of the Assessing Officer in the present case anchoring the entire addition upon the retracted Others Govind Corporation & Others statements of TNS was in flagrant violation not only of settled judicial doctrine but of the Board‟s own directives.

The learned Authorised Representative then turned to what he termed the “central infirmity” of the entire assessment the treatment of the seized excel sheet as conclusive documentary evidence. He contended that even if, arguendo, the statements under section 132(4) were to be disregarded or viewed with circumspection, the excel sheets themselves, in the absence of any corroboration, were nothing but “dumb documents” incapable of independent evidentiary value. They were not part of the books of account, bore no authentication, and were admittedly prepared by PDG and not by any of the Directors of the assessee. The presumption under section 132(4A), he submitted, applies only to documents found to “belong to” the assessee and does not extend to the private MIS statements of an outsider like PDG . It was emphasized that the Department itself had not demonstrated that the seized excel sheets were maintained under the assessee‟s instruction or supervision and on the contrary a plain reading of the statements also indicate that these were not prepared by them as the words‟ Total land acquisition Proposed’ would not have been mentioned had the statement been prepared by the assessee. The Pointed out that this fact corroborates with the statement of NKS that this statement was prepared by PDG.

In support of this proposition, the learned AR drew strength from the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla & Others Govind Corporation & Others Ors. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 247–256 of 1998], wherein it was held that loose sheets or diaries, not being books of account regularly kept in the course of business, are not admissible evidence under section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court observed that entries made by one person in such documents, unless corroborated by independent evidence, cannot fasten liability on another. This, the AR submitted, was directly applicable to the present case, where the Assessing Officer sought to tax the assessee on the strength of the personal notings of PDG, without establishing authorship, authenticity, or relevance. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India [(2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC)] the celebrated “Birla–Sahara Diaries” case wherein the Court had categorically held that uncorroborated third-party records found in the course of search have no evidentiary value whatsoever.

The learned counsel further cited a line of decisions from the jurisdictional and coordinate benches to reinforce the “dumb document” principle. Reference was made to Principal CIT v. Umesh Ishrani [(2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom)], where the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal‟s finding that rough, unauthenticated notings in seized diaries, unaccompanied by corroborative evidence, could not justify addition under sections 68 or 69A. He also drew our attention to Harish Textile Engineers Ltd. v. DCIT [(2015) 63 taxmann.com 66 (Bom)], and DCIT v. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University [(2024) 159 Others Govind Corporation & Others taxmann.com 353 (Mum Trib)], both reiterating that such scribbled records, unless validated through substantive inquiry, are mere dumb documents. The AR thus submitted that the legal landscape on this issue is unequivocal: dumb documents, being self-serving, incomplete, or untested, cannot by themselves be a foundation for addition, particularly when the statements accompanying them have been retracted and no further corroboration is forthcoming.

Having thus traversed the legal authorities, the learned AR concluded that the entire assessment was built on conjecture and surmise. The Assessing Officer, he submitted, had not summoned or examined any of the alleged receivers of cash or payers of cash, though their details were available. No corroboration, direct or circumstantial evidence was adduced; and yet, the assessee was visited with enormous additions merely on the strength of what were, at best, an MIS statement or a loose sheet. To uphold such additions, he urged, would be to elevate suspicion to the level of proof, an approach that has been consistently disapproved by Courts. The learned AR therefore prayed that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) under section 69A/69B be deleted in toto, and that the assessment itself, founded on invalid notice and defective notice, be declared void ab initio.

On the legal grounds, the summary of the ld. Counsel submissions are as under:- A) Notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing officer instead of faceless Assessing officer Others Govind Corporation & Others (i) The AR also pointed out that the notice under section 148 was issued by jurisdictional Assessing officer in contravention of Section 151A of the Act & the scheme frame thereafter and therefore the reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (ii) The AR argued that as per the scheme formulated vide Notification S.O1466 (E)(18/2022) dated March 29, 2022 (“the Scheme”) issued under section 151A of the Act, the notice under section 148 of the Act could only have been issued in a faceless manner. (iii) The AR further argued that as per section 151A of the Act, read with the scheme, any notice under section 148 of the Act shall be issued only in terms of the said scheme and in a faceless manner. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the AO is invalid and liable to be quashed and set aside. (iv) The AR relied on the following jurisdictional and non- jurisdictional high court / Tribunal decisions: a. Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT reported in [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay HC)

The Assessee further submitted that none of the above decisions have been stayed by Hon‟ Supreme Court and therefore the same has the binding force on the lower appellate authorities. In this connection the Assessee relies on B. Defective notice issued under section 148 of the Act The AR argued that the reassessment proceedings are invalid in law, as the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act in the case of E I Resorts & Clubs Pvt Ltd. for AY 2012-2013 and 2020-2021 is fundamentally defective.

The learned Departmental Representative (DR), on his part, sought to defend the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) with considerable fervor. He submitted that the seized excel sheets and loose papers though not part of the statutory books of account, constituted contemporaneous records maintained by the person of the group, and therefore, merited serious evidentiary consideration. The DR argued that TNS was a key managerial person who , by virtue of his long standing involvement in the affairs of the group , had intimate knowledge of the case. The DR argued that very fact, that the excel sheet and loose paper were discovered from the office premises of the assessee gave rise to a presumption under section 132(4A) that the contents thereof belonged to the assessee. He further argued that the statement of TNS, recorded contemporaneously during the search, carried evidentiary weight. According to the DR, such testimonies could not be brushed aside as unreliable merely because of subsequent retractions.

The learned DR further contended that the retractions filed by TNS and NKS were afterthoughts, strategically made only after they had realized the adverse implications of their earlier admissions. Such belated retractions, he argued, should not dilute the evidentiary value of statements recorded under section 132(4), which, by legislative design, enjoy a special evidentiary status. In this connection, he drew Others Govind Corporation & Others reference to certain judicial pronouncements where Courts have held that retractions lacking immediate contemporaneity or supporting explanation cannot be accepted at face value. The DR also maintained that while the excel sheets / loose paper may not have been formal books of account, they nevertheless reflected a coherent pattern of transactions covering multiple years, with cross-references to names, amounts, and land parcels, thereby lending internal consistency and credibility to the entries. He urged that the Assessing Officer had correctly distinguished between the entries relatable to payment by cheque and entries relatable to payment by cash.

On the question of corroboration, the learned DR contended that complete mathematical or documentary correlation is not always possible in cases of search, and that circumstantial inference drawn from the seized material can, in appropriate cases, suffice for sustaining an addition. He emphasized that the Assessing Officer, by collating the excel sheet and loose sheet with the statements of key managerial person had constructed a cogent evidentiary mosaic pointing to unaccounted transactions. The DR urged that the Tribunal should not substitute its own appreciation of evidence in place of the Assessing Officer‟s considered view, unless such view is perverse or devoid of rational basis. In his submission, the order of the CIT(A), which had already granted substantial relief, represented a fair equilibrium between departmental interest and taxpayer‟s grievance, and no further deletion was warranted.

We now turn to the connected appeals for the subsequent assessment years, wherein the facts, issues, and the reasoning adopted by the Assessing Officer are pari materia to those already adjudicated upon in the lead year. In each of these years, the additions have emanated from the same set of excel sheet and the same statements recorded during the search, with only the quantum of alleged unaccounted investment in Dhokawade land differing in arithmetical magnitude. The learned representatives on both sides fairly conceded that the evidentiary foundation, the nature of seized material, and the pattern of assessment are identical. Having Others Govind Corporation & Others already held that the very basis of these additions is legally infirm and evidentially hollow, it necessarily follows that the same reasoning applies mutatis mutandis to these years as well. We therefore adopt our findings and conclusions in the lead appeal as applicable in toto to the remaining years under consideration.

For the sake of ready reference the grounds raised by the assessee in other year and EI Beneficiary Trust are incorporated as under:- (A)

We also note that in, the Assessing Officer has purported to reopen completed assessments merely on the basis of the seized excel sheet, even though such material pertained entirely to earlier or later years. This mechanical transposition of entries across assessment years, without verifying the temporal correlation of the alleged transactions, amounts to impermissible telescoping of facts. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [(1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC)] held that reopening under section 147 cannot be used as a ploy for roving verification or fishing enquiry into completed matters. The Assessing Officer‟s act of extrapolating entries found in one year to reopen other years is precisely the mischief, which the Court sought to prevent. On this count too, the reassessments lack legal sanctity.

Additionally, the assesse (E I Beneficiary Trust) AY 2018- 19 (ITA No.3236/Mum/2025) has also raised an unconnected legal ground concerning improper DIN on the impugned assessment order. The undisputed factual matrix reveals that the assessment order was dated 24th March 2025, whereas the intimation letter bearing the DIN was generated and Others Govind Corporation & Others communicated on 26th March 2025. Thus, on the date when the assessment order was passed, no DIN existed in the system. The purported handwritten DIN subsequently inserted in the body of the order is a post facto attempt at regularization. This practice, we regret to note, stands in direct contravention of the binding mandate of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 dated 14th August 2019, which prescribes that “no communication shall be issued by any income-tax authority without a computer-generated DIN, and any communication issued in contravention thereof shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued.” The Circular, being issued in exercise of powers under section 119 of the Act, has statutory force and is binding upon all officers of the Department.

The Circular admits of only limited exceptions in cases involving system outages, emergencies, or other exceptional circumstances and even then, mandates the recording of reasons in writing, prior approval of the Chief Commissioner or Director General, and contemporaneous documentation of such approval in the assessment record. The Revenue has neither pleaded nor produced any evidence that such conditions were satisfied in the present case. On the contrary, the generation of DIN after the date of assessment belies any claim of technical exigency. The omission, therefore, is not a mere procedural irregularity but a substantive breach that goes to the root of jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. ACIT [(2023) 154 Taxmann.com 144 (Bom)] has authoritatively held that Others Govind Corporation & Others failure to issue an order through the designated ITBA portal, or issuance of an order without a valid pre-existing DIN, renders such order invalid and non est in the eyes of law. The Court rejected the argument that subsequent intimation of DIN could cure the defect, holding that such post-dated compliance defeats the purpose of the Circular, which is to ensure transparency, traceability, and audit trail of every communication issued by the Department.

The same principle was reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Laserwords US Inc. [(2025) 175 Taxmann.com 920 (Mad)], where it was held that an assessment order and DRP proceedings issued without a valid DIN were void ab initio. The Court observed that the procedural mandate under Circular No. 19 of 2019 is not directory but mandatory, and that even if a DIN was generated later and handwritten in the order, such post facto insertion could not cure the inherent defect of invalidity. The reasoning was reiterated in CIT (International Taxation) v. Sutherland Global Services Inc. [(2025) 175 Taxmann.com 897 (Mad)], where the Hon‟ble Court observed that the absence of a pre- generated DIN, or the failure to record reasons and obtain prior approval for manual issuance, is fatal to the validity of the order. These rulings, when read conjointly, leave no room for doubt that compliance with the DIN protocol is a jurisdictional prerequisite and not a curable irregularity.

The coordinate benches of this Tribunal have consistently followed this judicial position. In DCIT (Central Circle–7(2)) v. Shubhkanchi Trading Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. Others Govind Corporation & Others 1600/Mum/2022), the Tribunal, applying the ratio of Ashok Commercial Enterprises (supra), quashed the assessment order for violation of the DIN requirement, observing that the issuance of a manual order without a computer-generated DIN was antithetical to the CBDT‟s stated policy of transparency and accountability. Likewise, in CIT v. Laserwords US Inc. and Sutherland Global Services (supra), both the High Courts categorically declared that communications issued without valid DINs are “invalid and deemed to have never been issued.” Following these precedents, we hold that the assessment orders impugned before us having been manually issued and followed by post-dated DIN intimations are void in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained. The sanctity of the CBDT‟s procedural safeguards cannot be reduced to a mere formality; they are, in essence, the bedrock of institutional integrity in the era of faceless administration.

Having held so, it necessarily follows that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, in violation of the Faceless Scheme under section 151A and compounded by the failure to generate and quote a valid DIN, stand vitiated in law. The dual breaches one jurisdictional, the other procedural strike at the root of the assessment‟s validity. The notice under section 148, having been issued by an officer not authorised under the notified scheme, is coram non judice, and the subsequent order passed without a valid DIN is a nullity. This conclusion is fortified by the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), which has Others Govind Corporation & Others been consistently followed in Capital G LP v. ACIT (Writ Petition No. 15289 of 2024), Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)], and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)]. The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT [SLP (C) No. 18753/2025] lends further imprimatur to this legal position. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the reassessment orders impugned before us are void ab initio, both for want of jurisdiction and for breach of mandatory procedural require.57. Once the foundational assessment is quashed, all ancillary determinations such as depreciation recomputation, interest levies, or carry-forward adjustments lose their footing. In consequence, these incidental matters need no separate adjudication and are rendered infructuous.

For the sake of clarity and completeness, it is hereby recorded that: (i) additions were made towards alleged unaccounted investment in land at Dhokawade, are deleted in full; (ii) assessments reopened under section 147 are quashed as void ab initio for having been initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme under section 151A (ii) the assessment orders themselves are invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 due to the absence of a valid pre- generated DIN and (iii) the assessment orders themselves are invalidated on account of defective notices issued under section 148; It is further clarified that all consequential adjustments such as disallowances, carry-forward of losses, Others Govind Corporation & Others and levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C are rendered academic in view of the annulment of the primary assessment orders.

The cumulative outcome of these appeals is thus be summarised, for administrative convenience, as follows:- A.Y Result 3230/Mum/2025 Govind 2015-16 Allowed Corporation 3031/Mum/2025 Govind 2021-22 Allowed Corporation 3234/Mum/2025 EI Beneficary 2016-17 Allowed Trust 3235/Mum/2025 EI Beneficary 2017-18 Allowed Trust 3236/Mum/2025 EI Beneficary 2018-19 Allowed Trust

All the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed in full. No order as to costs. Order pronounced on October, 2025.