Loading judgment…
Facts
A search was conducted under Section 132 at the premises of M/s Golden Shelters Private Ltd, NKV Krishna Group, leading to the seizure of a pen-drive containing unaccounted cash receipts. Based on statements and seized material from this third-party search, the Assessing Officer made additions under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits and share capital in the assessees' cases, treating them as part of the NKV Krishna group, despite no direct search being conducted on the assessees themselves.
Held
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds challenging the validity of assessments under Section 153A. It was held that since no search was conducted at the assessees' premises and no incriminating material was found from them (despite their names appearing in the warrant of authorization), the assessment orders passed under Section 153A based solely on third-party search material or audited books for unabated assessment years are not justified. The assessment orders were quashed and additions deleted.
Key Issues
Whether assessments under Section 153A are valid when no search was conducted on the assessee's premises, and additions are made based on material found during a third-party search; and whether the mandatory approval required under Section 153D of the Act was obtained.
Sections Cited
68, 115WD, 115WE, 115WF, 115WH, 120, 124, 131, 132, 132A, 139, 142, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 151, 153, 153A, 153B, 153D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1767/Chny/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Anantram Agro Farms Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Limited, No. 51, Park View Street, Near Income Tax/DC, Gandhi Road, Alwarthirunagar, Central Circle 1(2), Thiruvallur, Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [PAN:AAHCA8470C] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1768/Chny/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Kurral Infrastructure Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Limited, Studio N, Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/DC, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [PAN:AAFCK3706M] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Shri Rakesh Joshi, C.A (Virtual) ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH: These eleven appeals filed by different assessees are directed against separate orders all dated 18.02.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai for the assessment year(s) stated herein above.
Since issues raised in Form 36 and the additional grounds raised are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
First, we shall take appeal in AY 2014-15 in the case of M/s. Hillview renewable Power Pvt. Ltd. for adjudication.
The ld. AR drew our attention to the application dated 05.09.2025, which was filed with ITAT Registry on 08.09.2025 and submits that the assessee raised additional grounds of appeal challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in passing assessment order under section 153A of the Act in the hands of the assessees, which is not in accordance with the provisions of law. The ld. AR submits that it is a legal ground, which goes to the root of the case, raised for the first time before the Tribunal. He argued that the said legal ground can be raised at any stage of the proceedings including this Tribunal and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Reported in 223 ITR 383 (SC). He prayed to admit the said ground and proceed to decide the said issue as preliminary ground.
The ld. DR submits that the assessee having participated before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) did not raise the same before the said authorities. He argued that it requires examination of the facts and prayed to dismiss the said ground.
Having heard both the parties, we note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. (supra) was pleased to hold that the legal ground can be raised at any stage of the proceedings including this Tribunal. The ld. DR did not dispute the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and we find no new facts are required to be examined and therefore, we proceed to admit additional ground.
7. The assessee raised following two additional grounds, which are reproduced herein below:
1. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in passing the assessment order under section 153A of the Act, which is not in accordance with the provisions of law.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in passing the assessment order under section 153A of the Act without obtaining the mandatory approval as required u/s. 153D of the Act.
8. Brief facts of the case are that a search was conducted under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was carried out at the residential/ business premises in the cases of M/s Golden Shelters Private Ltd, NKV Krishna Group on 16.10.2019. During the course of search, a pen-drive was found and seized on 17.10.2019 from the residence of Mr. Badri Narayan Kota, which contains a folder named “Data” containing unaccounted cash receipts, payments and unaccounted foreign currency exchange done under the direction of Mr. MKV Krishna. The relevant portion of sworn statement recorded from Mr. Badri Barayan Kota dated 16.10.2019 is reproduced at pages 2 & 3 of the assessment order.
During the course of search proceedings, the Assessing Officer ascertained that unaccounted cash pertaining to NKV Krishna was infused as deposit in the companies. Shri NKV Krishna in his reply to Q. 35 in the sworn statement recorded dated 24.10.2019 under section 131 of the Act, confirmed after going through Annexures – I, II & III of Mr. Saravana Kumar that the source for unsecured loans, cash deposits and introduction of share capital in the group companies, is unaccounted cash. These annexures contain the information of cash deposits received by the assessee company and cash deposit of ₹.15,00,000/- is not explained by the assessee as to the source, nature of deposit and person/entity from whom the deposits were made. The Assessing Officer noted that unaccounted cash of ₹.15,00,000/- was introduced as deposit during the FY 2013-14. Considering the deposition of Shri Saravana Kumar, and confirmation by Shri NKV Krishna, that the source for the cash deposit was unaccounted income, the Assessing Officer treated the unaccounted cash deposit received amounting to ₹.15,00,000/- as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act added to the total income of the assessee.
Further, on perusal of the balance sheet, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown share capital to an extent of ₹.1,00,000/- stated to have been received from Ms. Madhuri and Ms. Dharmika during the financial year under consideration. Since the assessee did not explain and furnish proof in respect of mode of receipt of the share capital, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The ld. AR Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA submits that no search was conducted in the case of the assessee and no panchnama executed in its name and therefore, the Assessing Officer has erroneously invoked the provisions of section 153A of the Act. He submits that the assessee made deposits in regular bank account duly recorded in the books of accounts and therefore, the same cannot be treated as incriminating documents being found during the course of search. He refers to assessment order and submits there was no search in the case of the assessee and no incriminating material was referred in the assessment order. He argued vehemently that the assessment made in the hands of the assessee without there being search and incriminating material found or seized in the case of the assessee, is not justified. He refers to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Ramesh D. Patel reported in [2014] 42 taxmann.com 540 (Gujarat) and argued that the provisions under section 153A of the Act make it very clear that only in the case of a person where search was initiated under section 132 or books of account or other documents or any assets were requisitioned under section 132A of the Act after 31.03.2002, the Assessing Officer could after issue of notice, assess or reassess the total income of such person for six assessment years. He prayed to allow additional ground No. 1 and quash the assessment.
The ld. DR Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). He placed on record Form 45, warrant of authorization under section 132 of the Act and submits that the names of all assessees are reflected in the warrant of authorization. He vehemently argued that the assessment in the hands of assessee is justified under section 153A of the Act since the search initiated under section 132 of the Act by issuing Form 45 of Warrant of Authorization. He submits that warrant of authorization is very much sufficient to complete assessment under section 153A of the Act. Further, reflection of name in Panchnama is not relevant to conclude as to whether the search was conducted in assessee’s premises and supported the order of the Assessing Officer in passing assessment order under section 153A of the Act. He prayed to dismiss the additional grounds of appeal.
13. In reply, the ld. AR admits that the names of the assessee are reflected in the warrant of authorization, but, however, referred to pages 10 to 16, 35 to 38 and 94 to 97 of the paper book and argued that though warrant of authorization issued in the name of the assessee, but, actually no search was conducted in the case of the assessee. He argued that Panchnama is the result of the search when there is no name of the assessee in the Panchnama, the assessment passed under section 153A of the Act is not maintainable. Further, the Ld. AR submits that the Panchnama is essential to show the incriminating evidence/documents to make any kind of additions in respect of unabated assessments. He vehemently argued that in the present case relating to all assessments i.e. AY’s 2014-2015 and 2016-17 being unabated assessments, the additions made are not tenable in the eyes of law and prayed for deleting the same.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that a search under section 132 of the Act was carried out at the residential/ business premises in the cases of M/s Golden Shelters Private Ltd, NKV Krishna Group on 16.10.2019 and admittedly, no Panchnama has been executed in the case of the assessee and no search and seizure operation has been carried out in the case of the assessee. On perusal of the pages 10 to 16, which are Panchnamas relevant to the warrant of authorization brought on record by the ld. DR, we find no name of the assessee appeared in the said Panchnama and there is no dispute the said warrant of authorization are relevant to Panchnamas at pages 10 to 16 of the paper book. Further, we find Panchnamas at page 35 to 38, which are also related to above said warrant of authorization, we find no name of the assessee appeared in the said Panchnamas. Further, pages 94 to 97, the facts remain admitted the said Panchnamas also related to above said warrant of authorization, but, we find no name of the assessee appearing in the said Panchnamas. The ld. DR submitted that authorization is given to the search team including the assessee, however, we observed that the premise of the assessee has not been mentioned in the search warrant, further, correspondingly, no Panchnama was also available in the name of the assessee. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that the Assessing Officer stated that the assessee’s case is covered by the search carried in the case of NKV Krishna & group vide para 2 of the assessment order, but, however, nothing was referred to in the said assessment order that there was search in the case of the assessee. Further, we find the Assessing Officer made addition in the hands of the assessee under section 68 of the Act only on the statement of search in the case of M/s. Golden Sheltors Pvt. Ltd., NKV Krishna and the alleged seized material. Therefore, it clearly shows that the impugned addition is only on the basis of the statement of the above said person and also seized material therein. In this regard, the ld. AR placed reliance of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of PCIT v. Sunrise Finlease (P) Ltd. reported in [2018] 89 taxmann.com 1 (Gujarat), wherein, it is clearly held that no addition could be made on the basis of statement of the Director of the assessee company therein vide para 6 & 7. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR that the Panchnama is the result of search in terms of warrant of authorization, but, when there is no Panchnama in the name of the assessee, we can safely conclude that there is no search in the case of the assessee covering the warrant of authorization and accordingly, the addition under section 68 of the Act and made thereon under section 153A of the Act based on the statement of searched person and seized material, is not justified in the case of the assessee.
The above said conclusion is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Ramesh D. Patel (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has observed as under: 5. We have no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Section 153A of the Act pertains to assessment in case of search or requisition. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 of the Act, in case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after 31st of May 2003, the Assessing Officer shall issue a notice to such person requiring him to furnish the return of income and assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made, Section 153B of the Act provides for time limit for completion of assessment under section 153A. 6. Learned counsel for the assessee has rightly relied on a decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Siksha 'O' Amusandhan v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 112/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 798 in which it was held that provisions of section 153A make it clear that only in the case of a person where a search was initiated under section 132 or books of account or other documents or any assets were requisitioned under section 132A after 31.3.2002, the Assessing Officer could after issuing a notice, assess or reassess the total income of such person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search was conducted or requisition was made.
In the present case, the Tribunal came to a factual finding that no search authorization was produced. This was necessary because the Assessing Officer had made contradictory references to the assessee being subjected to search or not. In absence of a search authorization, the Tribunal correctly held that assessment orders under section 153A could not have been passed. Reliance of the Revenue to section 124(3) of the Act would be of no avail. Section 124 pertains to jurisdiction of the Assessing Officers. Sub-section (1) thereof concerns the situation where, by virtue of any order or direction under sub-sections (1) or (2) of section 120, the Assessing Officer has been vested with jurisdiction over any area within the limits of such area. Sub-section (2) of section 124 provides, inter alia, that where a question arises under the said section as to whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Director General or the Chief Commissioner, etc. Sub- section (3) thereof provides as under: “(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer - (a) Where he has made a return under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub- section (2) of section 115WE or sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier, (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry of the time allowed by the notice under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or sub-section (1) of section 142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under Section 148 for making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier.” 16. On careful reading of the above findings, we note that the Hon’ble High Court Gujarat was pleased to hold that assessment under section 153A of the Act is not maintainable when no search authorization under section 132 of the Act was issued. In the present case, no doubt, warrant of authorization under Form 45 under section 132 of the Act was issued, but, however, no search was conducted which is evident from the assessment order as well as non-reflection of assessee’s name in the Panchnamas discussed above. On perusal of the assessment order dated 28.09.2021, we note that no reference whatsoever, taken in the said order with reference to conducting search in the case of the assessee and seizure of any incriminating material. We note that it is only stated that the assessee’s premises also covered under section 132 of the Act, but, nothing else concerning the incriminating material. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR that the Panchnama is the result of search when there is no name of the assessee in the said Panchnama, we can conclude safely that no search was taken place in the case of the assessee to make assessment under section 153A of the Act.
Further, we find that the additions are made based on the incriminating material found at the searched premises of the NKV group. Since, there is no Panchnama made in the names of the assessees, it can be concluded that the additions are made only based on the audited books of accounts and financials of the assessee. Further, the impugned assessment years are unabated and the additions made without any incriminating material is not tenable in the eyes of law. Our above view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. reported in 149 taxmann.com 399. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has erred in making the additions for the impugned assessment years being unabated. Thus, order of ld. CIT(A) is not justified and it is quashed. Consequently, the additions made thereon are deleted. Thus, additional ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
Since the assessee succeeds in the additional ground No.1, no opinion is rendered on additional ground No. 2.
In view of our decision in additional ground No. 1, which was heard as a preliminary ground holding in favour of the assessee, consequently quashing the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 as invalid, grounds raised
in Form 36 and additional ground No.2 becomes academic, requiring no adjudication. for AY 2016-17 in the case of M/s. Hillview Renewable Power Private Limited
20. In this appeal, we find no dispute by the ld. AR and the ld. DR with regard to raising of additional ground No1. on legal issue, which is similar and based on same identical facts with that of appeal in for AY 2014-15, wherein, we held additional ground No. 1 in favour of the assessee and consequently quashed the assessment order therein, as invalid. Therefore, the view taken by us in the said appeal in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal. Thus, additional ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
In view of our decision in additional ground Nos. 1, which was heard as a preliminary ground holding in favour of the assessee, consequently quashing the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 as invalid, grounds raised
in Form 36 and additional ground No.2 becomes academic requiring no adjudication. & 1761/Chny/2025 for AYs 2014-15 & 2016-17 in the case of M/s. Magnolia Ecopower Private Limited
22. In this appeal, we find no dispute by the ld. AR and the ld. DR with regard to raising of additional ground No1. on legal issue, which is similar and based on same identical facts with that of appeal in for AY 2014-15, wherein, we held additional ground No. 1 in favour of the assessee and consequently quashed the assessment order therein, as invalid. Therefore, the view taken by us in the said appeal in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal. Thus, additional ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
In view of our decision in additional ground Nos. 1, which was heard as a preliminary ground holding in favour of the assessee, consequently quashing the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 as invalid, grounds raised
in Form 36 and additional ground No.2 becomes academic requiring no adjudication. for AY 2014-15 in the case of M/s. Chetan Orchardes Private Limited
24. In this appeal, we find no dispute by the ld. AR and the ld. DR with regard to raising of additional ground No1. on legal issue, which is similar and based on same identical facts with that of appeal in for AY 2014-15, wherein, we held additional ground No. 1 in favour of the assessee and consequently quashed the assessment order therein, as invalid. Therefore, the view taken by us in the said appeal in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal. Thus, additional ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
In view of our decision in additional ground Nos. 1, which was heard as a preliminary ground holding in favour of the assessee, consequently quashing the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 as invalid, grounds raised in Form 36 and additional ground No.2 becomes academic requiring no adjudication.
AY 2015-16 in the case of M/s. Bluewater Estates Private Limited 26. In this appeal, we find no dispute by the ld. AR and the ld. DR with regard to raising of additional ground No1. on legal issue, which is similar and based on same identical facts with that of appeal in for AY 2014-15, wherein, we held additional ground No. 1 in favour of the assessee and consequently quashed the assessment order therein, as invalid. Therefore, the view taken by us in the said appeal in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal. Thus, additional ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
In view of our decision in additional ground Nos. 1, which was heard as a preliminary ground holding in favour of the assessee, consequently quashing the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 as invalid, grounds raised in Form 36 and additional ground No.2 becomes academic requiring no adjudication. for AY 2016-17 in the case of M/s. Ajitabh Orchardes Private Limited
In this appeal, we find no dispute by the ld. AR and the ld. DR with regard to raising of additional ground No1. on legal issue, which is similar and based on same identical facts with that of appeal in for AY 2014-15, wherein, we held additional ground No. 1 in favour of the assessee and consequently quashed the assessment order therein, as invalid. Therefore, the view taken by us in the said appeal in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal. Thus, additional ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
In view of our decision in additional ground Nos. 1, which was heard as a preliminary ground holding in favour of the assessee, consequently quashing the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 as invalid, grounds raised
in Form 36 and additional ground No.2 becomes academic requiring no adjudication. for AY 2016-17 in the case of M/s. Manindra Agro Farms Private Limited
30. In this appeal, we find no dispute by the ld. AR and the ld. DR with regard to raising of additional ground No1. on legal issue, which is similar and based on same identical facts with that of appeal in for AY 2014-15, wherein, we held additional ground No. 1 in favour of the assessee and consequently quashed the assessment order therein, as invalid. Therefore, the view taken by us in the said appeal in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal. Thus, additional ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
In view of our decision in additional ground Nos. 1, which was heard as a preliminary ground holding in favour of the assessee, consequently quashing the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 as invalid, grounds raised in Form 36 and additional ground No.2 becomes academic requiring no adjudication. for AY 2014-15 in the case of M/s. Harmony Renewable Energy Private Limited
In this appeal, we find no dispute by the ld. AR and the ld. DR with regard to raising of additional ground No1. on legal issue, which is similar and based on same identical facts with that of appeal in for AY 2014-15, wherein, we held additional ground No. 1 in favour of the assessee and consequently quashed the assessment order therein, as invalid. Therefore, the view taken by us in the said appeal in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal. Thus, additional ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
In view of our decision in additional ground Nos. 1, which was heard as a preliminary ground holding in favour of the assessee, consequently quashing the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 as invalid, grounds raised in Form 36 and additional ground No.2 becomes academic requiring no adjudication. for AY 2018-19 in the case of M/s. Anantram Agro Farms Private Limited
In this appeal, we find no dispute by the ld. AR and the ld. DR with regard to raising of additional ground No1. on legal issue, which is similar and based on same identical facts with that of appeal in for AY 2014-15, wherein, we held additional ground No. 1 in favour of the assessee and consequently quashed the assessment order therein, as invalid. Therefore, the view taken by us in the said appeal in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal. Thus, additional ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
In view of our decision in additional ground Nos. 1, which was heard as a preliminary ground holding in favour of the assessee, consequently quashing the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 as invalid, grounds raised in Form 36 and additional ground No.2 becomes academic requiring no adjudication. for AY 2016-17 in the case of M/s. Kurral Infrastructure Private Limited
In this appeal, we find no dispute by the ld. AR and the ld. DR with regard to raising of additional ground No1. on legal issue, which is similar and based on same identical facts with that of appeal in for AY 2014-15, wherein, we held additional ground No. 1 in favour of the assessee and consequently quashed the assessment order therein, as invalid. Therefore, the view taken by us in the said appeal in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal. Thus, additional ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
In view of our decision in additional ground Nos. 1, which was heard as a preliminary ground holding in favour of the assessee, consequently quashing the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 as invalid, grounds raised in Form 36 and additional ground No.2 becomes academic requiring no adjudication.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed. Order pronounced on 06th November, 2025 at Chennai.