SUBHANSHU GUPTA,KARKHANNA BAZAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE ,HALDWANI

Delay(s) of 15/18 days in filing of all these appeals; as the case may be, stand condoned in the larger interest of justice.

We next notice at the outset with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the search in question dated 04.01.2018 carried out in M/s SSGR Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited followed by the consequential assessments framed herein; has given rise to these eight appeals filed at the taxpayers’ behest. And also that there arises the identical legal issue in all these cases except IT (SS) A No. 96/DDN/2026 regarding validity of the impugned assessments itself. This is for the precise reason that not only the learned lower authorities; and more particularly, the Assessing Officer, appears to have set into motion the impugned proceedings against these assessees on 14.12.2020 u/s 153C of the Act but also the addition(s) made in 3 | P a g e

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s foregoing legal arguments. We find no merit therein as in light of section 153C(1) first proviso of the Act, the date of initiation of search in such an instance is that of either handing over if the records to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the non-searched party(ies) or that of recording his satisfaction as per PCIT vs Ojjus Medicare Private Limited (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del.). We adopt the very logic herein to conclude that once all these impugned assessment years turn out to be the 4 | P a g e

We now advert to Shri Girish Kumar Gupta’s case appeal ITA (SS) A No. 96/DDN/2026, involving the year of search itself and the assessment framed in his case is u/s 143(3) of the Act. Both the learned lower authorities have made addition of the “surrendered” income amounting to Rs. 19,00,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act which has also been directed to be inclusive of the unexplained jewellery addition u/s 69A amounting to Rs. 43,75,461/- as well. This former addition is stated to be based on the assessee’s admission only which does not carry any significance as per the CBDT’s landmark circular issued wayback on 10.03.2003. We thus find no merit in the impugned addition of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- made in the assessee’s hands which is directed to be deleted in very terms. We make it clear that the aforesaid latter addition of Rs. 43,75,461/- shall indeed be deemed to have been independently confirmed in other 5 | P a g e

These twin assessee’s i.e., Shri Subhanshu Gupta and Shri Rishabh Gupta’s seven appeals i.e., ITA No. 84/DDN/2026 with IT (SS) A No. 90 & 91/DDN/2026 & IT (SS) A Nos. 87 to 89 with 97/DDN/2026; are allowed and the third assessee, Shri Girish Kumar Gupta’s solitary appeal i.e., IT (SS) A Nos. 96 /DDN/2026 is partly allowed; in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.