SURENDRA SINGH BENGANI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(1), KOLKATA

ITSSA 34/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 September 2026AY 2013-20147 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Surendra Singh Bengani, filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11 to 2014-15. A search was conducted on the Surana Group on March 2, 2015, leading to notices under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO made additions totaling ₹5,28,00,000/- for bogus loans, ₹25,00,000/- for sale of shares, and disallowed interest of ₹30,88,850/- on bogus loans. The AO also disallowed ₹36,95,106/- as interest attributable to personal investments. The assessee contended that these additions were made without any incriminating material found during the search, and thus the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 153C. The CIT(A) had affirmed the AO's orders.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were based on the assessee's books of accounts and other evidences furnished by the assessee, not on any incriminating material found during the search on the Surana Group. The Tribunal noted that the assessments for the impugned assessment years had already attained finality and had not abated. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. and the Calcutta High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Sri Shanti Kumar Surana (which followed Abhisar Buildwell), the Tribunal held that in cases of unabated and completed assessments, additions can only be made if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search. Since no such material was found concerning the additions in question, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make them under Section 153C/153A. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the additions. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to make additions under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15, in the absence of any incriminating material found and seized during the search conducted on the Surana Group on March 2, 2015, when the assessments for these years had already attained finality and had not abated. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the additions made by the AO were based on books of accounts and evidence furnished by the assessee, not on any incriminating material seized during the search. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make these additions under Section 153C. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue regarding this issue. However, the revenue was the appellant before the Tribunal in a related matter (PCIT Vs. Sri Shanti Kumar Surana, ITA/1/2023), which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 143(3),Section 153D,Section 36(i)(iii),Section 153A,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar &
For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Hearing: 08.09.2026Pronounced: 28.09.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata- 27, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 11.02.2026, 13.02.2026, for the AY 2010-11 to 2014-15. 2. The issue involved in all these appeals is common and all these appeals relate to the same assessee. Therefore, the same are being decided by a consolidated order for the sake of ready reference and brevity. First, we would take ITA No. 31/KOL/2026 for A.Y. 2010-11 and accordingly, decide the issue.

IT(SS)A No. 31 to 35/KOL/2026 Surendr

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,497 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →