M/S. HILLSIDE GARDEN PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), CHENNAI

PER BENCH:

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 3 :: The captioned appeals in ITA Nos. 3319 and 3320/Chny/2025, filed by different assessees, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-18 [hereinafter referred to as “the ld.CIT(A)”], both dated 12.11.2025. Similarly, the appeals in ITA Nos. 3321 and 3322/Chny/2025, filed by different assessees, are directed against the separate orders passed by the ld.CIT(A), both dated 10.11.2025. In all four appeals, the ld.CIT(A) has upheld the respective assessment orders passed u/s.153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), for the Assessment Year (“AY”) 2016–17. Since the facts and the grounds of appeal raised by the respective assessees are similar in all four appeals, we take M/s Pebblebrook Ecoenergies Energy Private Limited ITA No. 3319/Chny/2025 as the lead case for adjudication. Accordingly, our findings and decision in ITA No. 3319/Chny/2025 for AY 2016-17 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other three appeals, viz., ITA Nos. 3320, 3321 and 3322/Chny/2025. M/s Pebblebrook Ecoenergies Energy Private Limited ITA No. 3319/Chny/2025: 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds before the Tribunal: 1. The ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in not appreciating that the original assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) read with section 153A was invalid and, consequently, the revision order passed u/s. 263 and the consequential assessment order

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 4 :: passed u/s. 153A read with section 263 were also liable to be set aside. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.19,50,000 u/s. 68 by treating the land advance received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.2 During the search proceedings, Tally data maintained by Shri Saravana Kumar, Accounts Manager of the group companies, was seized. The seized records contained details of cash introduced into various group entities under different heads, including land advances, share application money and

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 5 :: unsecured loans. In his sworn statement, Shri Saravana Kumar stated that such amounts represented unaccounted cash. Shri N.K.V. Krishna also confirmed the nature of the transactions recorded in the relevant annexures.

3.3 The ledger of the assessee's bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank, as extracted from the seized Tally data, reflected cash receipts aggregating to Rs.19,50,000/- on 29.03.2016 under the narration “Land Advance Received”. The assessee did not furnish the identities and addresses of the persons from whom the amounts were allegedly received or documentary evidence establishing the source of the cash receipts. 3.4 Pursuant to the order u/s. 263, the AO issued notices calling for details and subsequently issued a show-cause notice proposing an addition of Rs.19,50,000/- u/s. 68. The assessee submitted that the amount represented land advances duly recorded in its books and disclosed in its audited financial statements. It further contended that substantial additional income, including Rs.13 crore in the case of M/s Golden Shelters Private Limited, had been considered in proceedings before the Interim Board of Settlement (IBS), and that the same was sufficient to cover the impugned addition.

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 6 :: 3.5 Warrant of authorization is as under: -

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 7 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 8 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 9 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 10 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 11 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 12 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 13 :: 3.6 Panchanama is as below: -

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 14 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 15 ::

3.7 Sworn Statement of Saravanakumar as below: -

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 16 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 17 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 18 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 19 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 20 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 21 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 22 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 23 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 24 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 25 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 26 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 27 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 28 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 29 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 30 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 31 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 32 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 33 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 34 :: 3.8 Annexure II & III are as under: -

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 35 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 36 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 37 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 38 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 39 ::

3.9 Findings of the Assessing Officer (‘AO’): The AO observed that the seized Tally data reflected cash receipts aggregating to Rs.19,50,000/- in the assessee's bank ledger under the narration “Land Advance Received”. The entries were dated 29.03.2016 and formed part of the records maintained by the group's accountant. According to the AO, the assessee had failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding the source of the cash receipts. It did not provide the names and addresses of the alleged persons making the advances or any supporting documentary evidence establishing the nature and source of the credits. The AO further noted that the additional income of Rs.13 crore referred to by the assessee arose from the disallowance of 10% of unaccounted expenses aggregating to Rs.126.96 crore in the case of M/s Golden Shelters Private Limited. The assessee had not demonstrated any nexus between that amount and the specific cash credits appearing in its own books. Accordingly, holding that the explanation offered by the assessee was unsatisfactory, the AO treated the entire amount of Rs.19,50,000 as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 and initiated penalty proceedings. The AO rejected the explanation and, by order dated 11.11.2024 passed u/s. 153A read with section 263, added Rs.19,50,000/- u/s. 68 as unexplained cash credit.

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 40 ::

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 41 :: Regarding the settlement proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) noted that the IBS order dated 30.12.2023 had considered reconciliation of the unaccounted transactions recorded in the pen drive and allowed relief of Rs.22.52 crore in respect of cash relating to various entities. The assessee had not established that the specific amount of Rs.19,50,000/- was included in the additional income considered in the settlement proceedings in a manner warranting deletion of the addition in its hands. The ld.CIT(A), therefore, rejected both the challenge to the addition and the alternative claim for telescoping, confirmed the addition of Rs.19,50,000/- u/s. 68 and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 42 :: assessment year and that no addition could be made u/s. 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of search. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (149 taxmann.com 399), wherein it was held that, in respect of completed or unabated assessments, additions u/s. 153A could not be made in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during the search. The ld.AR for the assessee further submitted that substantial additional income had been offered by the group before the IBS, including Rs.13 crore in the case of M/s Golden Shelters Private Limited. It was argued that the additional income considered in the settlement proceedings was sufficient to cover the impugned amount and that the benefit of telescoping should be granted, at least as an alternative relief. The assessee also relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Achuyta Plantations Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, ITA Nos. 3251–3253/Chny/2025, in support of its contention that the impugned addition could not be sustained in the absence of incriminating material warranting an addition u/s. 153A. He further relied upon the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the cases of M/s Ajitabh Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd & Other cases dated 29.04.2026 in ITA Nos.3115- 3120/Chny/2025.

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 43 :: 6. Submissions of the Revenue: The ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). It was submitted that the Combined Warrant of Authorization issued u/s.132 of the Act included the names of 137 assessees, including the assessee under consideration. The corresponding Panchnama recorded the seizure of material bearing identification ANN/SC/NKVK/ED/S. According to the Revenue, the Tally data maintained by Shri Saravana Kumar, which was seized during the search, contained the details of cash introduced into the group companies under different heads. Shri Saravana Kumar had admitted in his sworn statement that the amounts recorded in the relevant annexures represented unaccounted cash. The nature of the transactions was also corroborated by the statement of Shri N.K.V. Krishna. The Revenue contended that, although the impugned receipts were recorded in the books as land advances, their actual character as unaccounted cash was revealed by the seized material. Thus, the addition was not based merely on entries in the regular books of account but on specific incriminating material found during the search. With regard to the claim for telescoping, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee had not established any direct nexus between the impugned cash receipts and the additional income considered in the settlement proceedings. It was further submitted that relief of Rs.22.52

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 44 :: crore had already been considered in the IBS proceedings in relation to cash investments in various group entities. The assessee could not claim a further adjustment without establishing that the same amount had already been subjected to tax in a manner warranting relief in its hands. The Revenue accordingly prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be upheld and the appeal of the assessee be dismissed. 7. Our findings and conclusion: We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and considered the orders of the authorities below. The issues arising for our consideration are: Whether the consequential assessment is liable to be annulled on the ground that the original assessment order was invalid. Whether the addition of Rs.19,50,000/- u/s. 68 is sustainable, having regard to the contention that no incriminating material was found during the search. Whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of telescoping on account of the income considered in the settlement proceedings. Whether the decision relied upon by the assessee in Achuyta Plantations Pvt. Ltd. applies to the facts of the present case. 7.1. Validity of the consequential assessment: The assessee's first ground challenges the validity of the original assessment order passed u/s. 153A read with section 143(3), and consequently the revision order u/s. 263 and the consequential assessment. We find that the original

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 45 :: assessment was completed on 28.09.2021 accepting the returned loss. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT passed an order u/s. 263 dated 21.03.2024, directing the AO to examine the source of the cash credits of Rs.19,50,000/- appearing in the seized records. In pursuance of the said order, the AO passed the consequential assessment on 11.11.2024. The assessee has not demonstrated before us that the order passed u/s. 263 was set aside or otherwise ceased to operate. Nor has the assessee established, by reference to a specific statutory violation applicable to the facts, that the consequential assessment must be annulled merely because the original assessment is alleged to be invalid. The validity of the consequential assessment must be examined with reference to the subsisting revision order, the scope of the directions issued therein and the action taken by the AO pursuant thereto. The assessee's general assertion that the original assessment was invalid is insufficient, by itself, to establish that the consequential assessment is void. We accordingly find no sustainable basis, on the material placed before us, to annul the consequential assessment on the ground urged by the assessee. The first ground of appeal is dismissed. 7.2. Whether incriminating material was found during the search: The principal contention of the assessee is that the assessment year under consideration is an unabated assessment year and

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 46 :: that, in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, no addition could be made u/s. 153A. The assessee has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (149 taxmann.com 399). The legal position laid down therein is that, in respect of completed or unabated assessments, an addition u/s. 153A cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during the search. There is no dispute with this settled legal principle. The controversy before us is whether the impugned addition is supported by such material. In this regard, the revenue has filed the combined Warrant of Authorization issued u/s. 132 of the Act, and the corresponding Panchnama etc. We have examined the Combined Warrant of Authorization issued u/s. 132 of the Act, wherein the names of 137 assessees, including the present assessee, are figuring. We have also examined the corresponding Panchanama, which records the seizure of material bearing identification ANN/SC/NKVK/ED/S. The aforesaid documents establish that the search authorization covered the assessee and that material bearing the stated seizure identification was seized during the search proceedings. However, the existence of a search warrant and Panchanama, by themselves, would not be sufficient to establish that the impugned addition is based on incriminating material. It is necessary to examine the contents of the seized records and their connection with the addition in dispute. On examination of the assessment order and the findings of the ld.CIT(A), we find

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 47 :: that the Tally data maintained by Shri Saravana Kumar contained details of cash introduced into various group companies. Annexure III prepared from the seized records identified the assessee at serial number 43 and reflected an amount of Rs.19,50,000/- for the financial year 2015-16 relevant to assessment year 2016-17. The relevant bank ledger extracted from the seized Tally data records cash receipts aggregating to Rs.19,50,000/- under the narration “Land Advance Received”. The entries are further supported by the statements attributed to Shri Saravana Kumar and Shri N.K.V. Krishna, which indicate that the amounts recorded in the relevant annexures represented unaccounted cash introduced into the group companies. Thus, the addition is not based merely on the existence of an accounting entry in the regular books of account. The material relied upon by the AO identifies the impugned amount, links it to the assessee and indicates that the underlying receipts represented unaccounted cash. The assessee has not furnished evidence rebutting this specific material or establishing the source of cash receipts. The mere fact that the receipts were recorded in the books as land advances and disclosed in the audited financial statements does not negate the evidentiary value of the seized records. Disclosure of a receipt in the accounts and explanation of the source from which the amount was received are distinct matters. In these circumstances, we hold that the impugned addition is supported by material found during the search and

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 48 :: is not hit by the principle laid down in Abhisar Buildwell. The assessee's contention that the addition must be deleted merely because the assessment year is unabated is, therefore, rejected. 7.3. Sustainability of the addition u/s. 68: Having held that the addition is based on material found during the search, we now examine whether the addition is sustainable on merits. Section 68 of the Act provides that where a sum is found credited in the books of an assessee and the assessee offers no explanation regarding its nature and source, or the explanation offered is not satisfactory in the opinion of the AO, the sum may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In the present case, the assessee has described the credits as land advances. However, it has not furnished the names and addresses of the persons from whom the amounts were allegedly received, confirmations, agreements relating to the proposed land transactions or other documentary evidence establishing the source of the cash receipts. The seized records, read with the statements referred to by the AO and the CIT(A), indicate that the amounts represented unaccounted cash introduced into the group companies. The assessee has not produced any material to rebut this finding or satisfactorily explain the source of the impugned credits. The contention that the amounts were recorded in the books and disclosed in the audited financial statements does not, by itself, discharge the

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 49 :: burden cast upon the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. The relevant question is not merely whether the receipts were entered in the books, but whether the nature and source of the credits have been satisfactorily explained. We therefore find that the AO was justified in treating the sum of Rs.19,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The ld.CIT(A), having considered the seized material and the explanation offered by the assessee, was justified in confirming the addition. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.19,50,000 u/s. 68 is upheld. 7.4. Claim for telescoping of income considered in the settlement proceedings: The assessee has alternatively contended that substantial additional income was offered by the group before the IBS, including Rs.13 crore in the case of M/s Golden Shelters Private Limited, and that the impugned addition should be telescoped against such income. We have considered this submission. The material placed before us indicates that the amount of Rs.13 crore arose in the context of the disallowance of 10% of unaccounted expenses aggregating to Rs.126.96 crore in the case of M/s Golden Shelters Private Limited. The assessee has not demonstrated that the specific cash receipts of Rs.19,50,000/- were included in that amount or that the settlement order otherwise dealt with the same credits in a manner entitling the assessee to relief. We further note that the ld.CIT(A), after examining the IBS order dated 30.12.2023,

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 50 :: observed that relief of Rs.22.52 crore had been considered in respect of cash relating to various entities and investments reflected in the relevant annexures. The assessee has not established that the present addition was already included in an amount assessed or settled in a manner that would warrant its exclusion from the assessee's income. The mere fact that additional income has been offered or assessed in the hands of another group entity does not automatically entitle the assessee to telescoping. The assessee must establish the factual nexus between the income already considered and the unexplained credit sought to be telescoped, while also demonstrating that the same income is not being given relief twice. In the absence of such evidence, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) rejecting the claim for telescoping. The assessee's alternative contention is accordingly dismissed. 7.5. Distinguishing the decision in Achuyta Plantations Pvt. Ltd.: We have also examined the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Achuyta Plantations Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, ITA Nos. 3251–3253/Chny/2025, relied upon by the ld.Authorised Representative. In this regard, we observe that the material available before us does not enable us to conclusively ascertain whether either party had actually placed on record before the Tribunal in Achuyta Plantations Pvt. Ltd. the relevant ‘Warrant of Authorization’ u/s.132, the corresponding ‘Panchnama’, the sworn statement of Shri Saravana Kumar and Annexures II and

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 51 :: III containing the details of the cash introduced into the group companies. However, in the present case, the ld.Departmental Representative (DR) has placed on record the aforesaid material evidence. We have examined the Combined Warrant of Authorization u/s.132 of the Act, which contains the names of 137 assessees, including the present assessee, and the corresponding Panchnama recording the seizure of material bearing identification ANN/SC/NKVK/ED/S. We have also considered the sworn statement of Shri Saravana Kumar and the relevant Annexures II and III, which contain details of the unaccounted cash transactions in the group entities. On examination of these materials, we find that Annexure III specifically identifies the present assessee and records an amount of Rs.19,50,000/- for the financial year 2015-16. The corresponding Tally entries record the said amount under the narration “Land Advance Received”. The statement of Shri Saravana Kumar, read with the other material on record, provides evidence concerning the nature of the impugned receipts as unaccounted cash introduced into the assessee company. Thus, the present case is supported by a specific body of documentary and testimonial evidence placed before us by the Revenue, establishing a connection between the material seized during the search and the addition made in the assessee's hands. The existence of such evidence and its relevance to the impugned addition are material considerations in deciding whether the requirement of incriminating material

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 52 :: laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. is satisfied. We make it clear that we are not proceeding on the assumption that the aforesaid material was absent in Achuyta Plantations. In the absence of a verified record establishing what documents were placed before the Tribunal in that case, no categorical finding in that regard can be recorded. Nevertheless, the issue in the present appeal must be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence actually placed before us and its demonstrated nexus with the impugned addition. Accordingly, the assessee's reliance on Achuyta Plantations cannot, by itself, lead to deletion of the addition without examining the specific evidentiary material available in the present case. Having regard to the seized records, the relevant annexures and the corroborative sworn statement, we find that the impugned addition is supported by material having a direct nexus with the assessee. The legal principle laid down in Abhisar Buildwell is, therefore, distinguishable in its application to the facts of the present case, as the condition concerning the existence of incriminating material is satisfied. We accordingly reject the assessee's reliance on the said decision for deletion of the impugned addition. Our above views will also apply with regard to the case law filed by the assessee in the M/s Ajitabh Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd & Other cases dated 29.04.2026 in ITA Nos.3115- 3120/Chny/2025.

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 53 :: 8. Conclusion and operative order: In view of the foregoing discussion, we record our findings as follows: 1. The assessee has not established a sustainable legal basis for annulling the consequential assessment passed u/s. 153A read with section 263, particularly in the absence of material demonstrating that the subsisting revision order u/s. 263 was set aside or otherwise ceased to operate. 2. The Combined Warrant of Authorization u/s. 132, the corresponding Panchanama recording the seizure of material bearing identification ANN/SC/NKVK/ED/S, the relevant Tally entries and Annexure III, read with the corroborative statements, establish the evidentiary basis for the impugned addition. 3. The addition of Rs.19,50,000/- is supported by material found during the search and is not liable to be deleted merely on the ground that the assessment year is unabated. The assessee has also failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of the cash credits. 4. The assessee has not established the requisite nexus between the impugned cash receipts and the additional income considered in the settlement proceedings to warrant telescoping.

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 54 :: 5. The decision in Achuyta Plantations Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 3251–3253/Chny/2025, does not, merely by reason of the legal principle relied upon, warrant deletion of the addition in the present case. The issue must be decided on the basis of the specific incriminating material and evidentiary findings in the assessee's case. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.19,50,000/- u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) are upheld, and both grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 10. ITA Nos. 3320, 3321 and 3322/Chny/2025 - Assessment Year 2016-17: In ITA No. 3320/Chny/2025: Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Domestic Private Limited Company engaged in agriculture and horticulture and filed its return of income u/ 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 22.09.2016 declaring a total loss of Rs. 22,989/- for the A.Y. 2016-17. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), was conducted on 16.10.2019 in the cases of the N.K.V. Krishna Group, including the assessee. In ITA No. 3321/Chny/2025: Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Domestic Private Limited Company engaged in agriculture and horticulture and filed its return of income u/

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 55 :: 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 22.09.2016 declaring a total loss of Rs.15,613/- for the A.Y. 2016-17. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), was conducted on 16.10.2019 in the cases of the N.K.V. Krishna Group, including the assessee. In ITA No. 3322/Chny/2025: Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Domestic Private Limited Company engaged in agriculture and horticulture and filed its return of income u/ 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 14.09.2016 declaring a total loss of Rs.23,525/- for the A.Y. 2016-17. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), was conducted on 16.10.2019 in the cases of the N.K.V. Krishna Group, including the assessee. 11. Since the facts of the cases, the grounds of appeal raised by the respective assessees, and the findings recorded by the ld.CIT(A) in paragraphs 5.4.1 to 5.4.5 of the respective orders are similar in all four appeals, the same are not being reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. Accordingly, our findings and decision in ITA No.3319/Chny/2025 for AY 2016- 17 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other three appeals, viz., ITA Nos. 3320, 3321 and 3322/Chny/2025. In view of our findings and decision in ITA No. 3319/Chny/2025, the appeals filed by the respective assessees

ITA No. 3319, 3320, 3321 & 3322/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Pebbebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt Ltd, Hills Garden Pvt Ltd, Greenwood Farms Pvt Ltd & Avinash Plantations Pvt Ltd.VS ACIT CC1-(2) :: 56 :: in ITA Nos. 3320, 3321 and 3322/Chny/2025 are also dismissed. 12. In the final result, the appeals filed by the different assessee are dismissed as above. Order pronounced in the open court on the 26th day of October 2026 in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (इंतूरी रामा राव) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, +दनांक/Dated: 26th October 2026. SANDEE Digitally signed by SNDP, Sr. PS SANDEEP KUMAR P KUMAR Date: 2026.10.26 आदेश क ��त,ल-प अ.े-षत/Copy to: 16:50:45 +05'30' 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF