Loading judgment…
Facts
During a search operation on M/s. Vasistha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (assessee's sub-contractor) in February 2021, material pertaining to the assessee, VPR Mining Infrastructure Private Limited, was seized. Based on this and information from the GST Department, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 153C for AYs 2015-16 to 2020-21 and disallowed Rs. 10,53,44,877/- as bogus sub-contract payments for AY 2018-19. The CIT(A) quashed the Section 153C notice and the assessment order, finding that the satisfaction recorded by the AO for AY 2018-19 was not based on seized incriminating material pertaining to that specific assessment year.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that for Section 153C proceedings to be valid, there must be incriminating material seized that specifically pertains to the assessment year for which additions are made, establishing a nexus with undisclosed income. It noted that the AO's satisfaction note and the additions for AY 2018-19 were not linked to any incriminating material found during the search for that particular year, but rather relied on general information including from the GST Department. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C for AY 2018-19 was deemed invalid and the assessment for that year annulled.
Key Issues
Whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act is valid when the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer and the subsequent additions are not based on incriminating material seized that specifically pertains to the relevant assessment year, but on general information or material pertaining to other assessment years.
Sections Cited
153C, 132, 143(3), 153A, 147, 131(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD “B” BENCH, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 03.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order dated 19.03.2025 of the learned Commissioner of Income Hyderabad, relating to the Tax-(Appeals), Hyderabad-11, assessment year 2018-2019.
2 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in the instant appeal :
“The Id CIT(A) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law 2. The id CITA) erred in quashing the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act for the A.Y 2018-19 through the mandatory conditions as prescribed in section 153C are complied and the nexus is drawn from the seized material & documents collected during the post search proceedings and received by AD. The same has a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee and the satisfaction also accordingly recorded by the Assessing officer. 3. The Id CIT(A) erred in quashing the notice issued u/s 153C only on technical grounds by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dev Technofab Vs. DCIT referred to judgment in the case of Saksham Commodities Ltd & Ors. V ITO(2024) 338 CTR 418(Del), the ratio of which is distinguishable from the facts of the present case without appreciating the post search proceedings on the merits of the additions made. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend, modify or alter any ground or grounds of appeal
wherever necessary”.
3. Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication.
4. Ground Nos.2 to 6 are regarding quashing of notice issued u/sec.153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] by the learned CIT(A).
3 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 5. The assessee company is engaged in the business of mining activities on contract basis, development of infrastructure facilities in the area of canals, irrigation projects, earthwork contractor for repairing etc. The assessee filed it’s original return of income for the under consideration on 29.09.2018 declaring a total income of Rs.97,78,81,280/-. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/sec.143(3) of the Act on 11.03.2021 at the total income of Rs.97,82,07,728/-. In the meantime, there was a search and seizure operation u/sec.132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s.Vasistha Constructions Pvt. Ltd., on 09.02.2021. During the course of search and seizure action, certain material pertaining to the assessee was found and seized marked as Annexure A/VSC/ OFF/04 vide page nos.1 to 12 and 55 to 66 as well as Annexure A/VCPL/PO/01 & 02. Based on the information contained in said seized material, the proceedings u/sec.153C of the Act in the case of the assessee were initiated for the assessment years 2015-2016 to 2020-2021. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer
4 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 was in possession of certain information that the assessee had made sub-contract payments to a company namely M/s. Sunil Hitech Engineer Ltd [in short “M/s. SHEL”] is a paper company and was not operating from their registered address as per the GST reports indicating the fake invoices raised by the said company. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer concluded that the sub-contract payment of Rs.10,53,44,877/- made to M/s SHEL is bogus claim of expenditure and the same was disallowed by adding back to the total income of the assessee.
6. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A) and also challenged the validity of initiation of proceedings u/sec.153C of the Act. The learned CIT(A) has quashed the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.153C of the Act while passing the impugned order by recording the fact that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer while initiating the proceedings u/sec.153C in the case of the assessee based on the seized material does not pertain for the assessment year 2018-2019. This fact is also corroborated by no addition
5 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the seized material for the year under consideration, but, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance on account of sub-contract payments.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
Before the Tribunal, the learned CIT-DR for the Revenue Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik has submitted that there was a search and seizure action u/sec.132 of the Act in the case of M/s.Vasistha Constructions Pvt. Ltd., on 09.02.2021 which was a sub-contractor of the assessee. During the course of search and seizure action, it was found that the said sub-contractor did not carry-out any work, but, given the execution of the work to other various entities. All these arrangements are in the nature of accommodation entries without any execution of work. Apart from the seized material, the Assessing Officer also received information from the GST Department regarding the accommodation
6 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 entries provided by M/s. SHEL and consequently, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the sub-contract payment claimed as expenses. The Learned DR has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has quashed the notice issued u/sec.153C without appreciating the fact that the all these entities to whom the assessee claimed to have paid sub- contract expenses for execution of the work, are paper companies without any physical existence or infrastructure or carrying-out any actual execution of work as found during the course of proceedings. Therefore, any further information received by the Assessing Officer regarding bogus claim of sub-contract expenses can be the basis of addition in the proceedings u/sec.153C of the Act. In support of this contention, the Learned CIT-DR has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Krishnamurthy vs., DCIT, Order dated 13.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No.2411 of 2025 and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rejected the contention of the assessee that the transaction has not been found in the search at the assessee’s premises, but, was found and 7 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 collected from the society. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that “the expression found in the course of search is of wide amplitude and it does not restrict to the document found in assessee’s premises alone during the search. Therefore, even if in the course of search in the case of the assessee leads to the search of any individual or further investigation of the interrogation of the third parties, if a document is found, the recovery of the same would fall within the expression found ‘in the course of search’”. The Learned CIT-DR has also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian National Congress vs., DCIT, Order dated 22.03.2024 in W.P.(C).No. 4264/2024 & CM Nos.17433/2024 & 17435/2024. Thus, the Learned CIT-DR has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has committed an error in quashing the notice issued u/sec.153C of the Act. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer.
On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative Sri MV Prasad, CA for the Assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer in the satisfaction note
8 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 has made a mention of seized material pertains to the financial years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 i.e., for the assessment years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 and not for the assessment year 2018-2019. He has pointed-out that at page-2 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has given the details of the transactions found in the seized material. However, the Assessing Officer has not made any addition in respect of those transactions as found in the seized material, but, the addition in question was made solely on the basis of the information received from the GST Authorities which is undisputedly not a seized material found during the course of search and seizure carried-out in the case of M/s.Vasistha Constructions Pvt. Ltd., The Learned AR has referred to the seized material and submitted that none of the seized material or transactions recorded in the seized material pertains to the assessment year under consideration and, therefore, the initiation of proceedings u/sec.153C by the Assessing Officer without having any incriminating material found or seized during the course of search is invalid, void and consequently, the order
9 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 passed u/sec.153C of the Act is void abinitio. He has submitted that the satisfaction as required u/sec.153C of the Act should reflect that some undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee emanating from the material belonging to the third party found and seized. Therefore, the material on the basis of which, satisfaction is reached should not be vague, indefinite, distant or remote. In support of this contention, the Learned AR relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-XIII vs., Radhey Shyam Bansal [2011] 337 ITR 217 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT-(C), Kanpur vs., Smt. Nirmala Keshwani [2016] 380 ITR 566 (Allahabad) and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that “recording of satisfaction is not a mere formality, but, involves application of mind”. He has submitted that none of seized material have any bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2018-2019 and, therefore, the mandatory condition for initiation of proceedings u/sec.153C of the Act are not satisfied. The Learned AR has 10 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 further contended that the existence of incriminating material leading to an inference of undisclosed income is a pre-requisite for initiation of proceedings u/sec.153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer failed to establish the nexus between the seized material and undisclosed income of the assessee for the year under consideration. Once the seized material has no bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration, then, the satisfaction drawn by the Assessing Officer for initiation of proceedings u/sec.153C of the Act is completely without any basis. A mere mentioning of seized material and Annexures is not sufficient to draw an inference that transactions mentioned in those Annexures have bearing on the determination of the income. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material disclosing any undisclosed income for the year under consideration, satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiation of proceedings u/sec.153C is not valid and consequently, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.153C is liable to be quashed. He has relied upon the following decisions :
11 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 1. Pr. CIT, Bengaluru vs., Smt. Lakshmi Singh [2017] 78 taxmann.com 207 (Karnataka-HC).
Pr. CIT (Central), Bengaluru vs., Star PVG Exports [2019] 112 taxmann.com 163 (Karnataka-HC).
Dev Technofab Ltd., vs., DCIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 514 (Del.-HC).
Pr. CIT vs., TDI Infrastructure Ltd., [2024] 169 taxmann.com 223 (Del.-HC).
Saksham Commodities Ltd., vs., ITO [2024] 161 taxmann.com 485 (Del.-HC).
CIT vs., Raj Pal Bhatia [2011] 10 taxmann.com 191 (Del.-HC).
DCIT vs., UK Paints (Overseas) Ltd., [2023] 454 ITR 441 (SC)
9.1. The learned AR relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer has given the reasons recorded for issuing notice u/sec.153C of the Act in para-3 of the assessment order as under :
“3. The following reasons were recorded and a notice u/s 153C of the Act, dated 05.01.2022 was issued and duly served on the assessee : 1.0 On verification of Page No.37 to 43 of Annexure - During the course of search and seizure u/s.132 in the office premises of M/s. Vasistha Constructions Private Limited (VCPL). It is noticed that VCPL, has received sub-contract receipts of Rs.50.20 crores from M/s VPR Mining Infrastructure Private Limited for execution 12 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 of work at Siddipet, Telangana, which is part of Kaleswaram project, during the FY 2018-19. M/x. VCPL has in-tum given the part of above work to the following companies on sub-contract basis : a) Adurti Enterprises Private Limited- Rs. 7,23,69,657/- b) Shresht Industries Private Limited- Rs. 11,34.48,312/- c) Achith Enterprises Private Limited- Rs. 3,61,94,804/- d) Avago Infracon Private Limited - Rs. 3,54,70,906/- Total - Rs. 25,75,03,679/- 2.0. The tax invoices of Vasistha Constructions Pvt. Ltd., in the name of VPR Mining Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., along with tax invoices of sub-contractors viz., Adurti Enterprises, Shresht Industries, Achith Enterprises and Avago Infracon were seized as per Page Nos 1 to 12, 55 to 66 of Annexure- A/VSC/ OFF/04 and Page No.s 62-66 of Annexure- A/VCPL/PO/01. The details of sub- contract works for the work taken from M/s. VPR Mining Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., by Vasistha Constructions Pvt. Ltd., are seized as per Page No. 459 of Annexure-A/VCPL/PO/02.
3.0. During the course of search proceedings no documentary evidence in support of the work executed were found at the premises of VCPL. Hence, VCPL was requested to produce documentary evidence such as original sub-contract agreements, work progress certificates issued by site supervisors, M-books etc in support of execution of work by the above sub-contractors. However, no supporting documents were submitted by VCPL. 4.0. During search and PO operations Sri M. Sri Krishna Subba Raju, Ex. Director stated that they do not have sub-contract agreements with the above companies nor even he could identity persons who approached them for the above sub-contract works.
13 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 Further, it was stated that the sub-contract works were awarded to the above companies on behest of the principal contractor, M/s. VPR Mining Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and except copies of invoices, they do not have supporting documentary evidencing the work executed by above sub-contractors.
5.0. During search proceedings the DDIT, U-1(2), Hyderabad has issued summons on 22-04-2021, 04-06-2021 and 17-06-2021 to the assessee Ms. VPR Mining Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. However, the assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence in support of execution of works by the above sub-contractors.
6.0. It may be noted that the Central Government agencies like GST Department has identified the above four sub-contractors namely M/s.Adurti Enterprises Private Limited, Shresht Industries Private Limited. Achith Enterprises Private Limited and Avago Infracon Private Limited as bogus entities who provide accommodation entries and fake invoices without executing any work.
7.0. The above companies are in the list of fake credit issuers for the period July 17- March 20 along with source formation where the case was booked issued by the DG of Analytics and Risk Management vide C. No. DGARM/Tech/SOP/20/2019 dated 22-07-2020.
8.0. From the field enquiries by the DDIT,U-1(2), Hyderabad revealed that no such persons or offices at given address of Mis. Adurti Enterprises Private Limited, Shresht Industries Private Limited, Achith Enterprises Private Limited and Avago Infracon Private Limited.
14 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 9.0. Hence, it is clearly evident that assessee M/s. VPR Mining Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. has used the names of above sub- contractors to book bogus expenditure and withdrew cash and the amount involved of Rs.25.75.03.679/- needs to be brought to tax for the A.Y. 2019-20.
10.0. In view of the above, the information has implication in determining income of the assessee for A.Y. 2019-20.
Therefore, I am satisfied that the Page Nos.1 to 12. 55 to 66 of Annexure-A/VSC/OFF/04, Page Nos.62-66 of Annexure-A/VCPL/ PO/01 and Page No. 459 of Annexure-A/VCPL/PO/02 pertains to and the information contained therein relates to M/s. VPR Mining Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and has bearing on the determination of total income and this is a fit case for initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act, 1961 for AYs 2015-16 to AY 2020-21 u/s.153C and u/s. 143(2) for AY 2021-22.”
10.1. Thus, the Assessing Officer has given 4 transactions of sub-contract payments made by the assessee to the 4 entities for initiation of proceedings u/sec.153C of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has stated in para-11 of the impugned order as under :
11. Disallowance of Sub-contract expenses with regard to M/s Sunil Hitech Engineer Ltd. (AY 2018-19). 11.1. This office received information that the assessee M/s VPR Mining Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. (VPRMIPL) has availed input tax credit by way of bogus sub contract expenses and that there is 15 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 short payment of GST of Rs.10.2 Crores on works contract service by the assessee. 11.2. In this regard show cause notice was issued on 25.02.2022, wherein the assessee was requested to furnish information in response to the below mentioned questionnaire :
Information is received in this office that information was filed by you in response to summons issued u/s.131(1A) before the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2). As per the details it was noticed that for the F.Y.2018-19 & 2017-18, the following GST/ITC amounts have been reversed in DRC-03 by you.
Amount of GST-ITC reversed expenditure pertaining to the Name of the Sub Contractor pertaining to transaction (Rs.) transaction (Rs.) Sri Kakatiya Industries (India) 14,28,58,163 2,57,14,453 Pvt. Ltd. Rayon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 7,27,87,164 1,31,01,690 AY 2019-20 21,56,45,327 Sunil Hitech Engineer Ltd. 10,53,44,877 1,89,62,077 AY 2018-19 10,53,44,877 TOTAL 32,09,90,201 5,77,78,220 The evidences in this regard, have not been produced till date. Hence, you are required to show cause as to why the sub-contract expenditure amount reversed to the tune of Rs.32,09,90,201/- for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20 should not be disallowed and added back to the total income, as the same is bogus expenditure being booked in the name of sub-contractors and reversed subsequently. In this regard, please explain why the works contracts claimed in the P&L account should not be treated as bogus and 16 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 the same should not be brought to tax. Please submit the ledger extracts of the above mentioned works contracts for the A.Y.2015- 16 to 2021-22 and details of short payment.”
10.2. Thus, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to disallow the sub-contract expenses with regard to M/s. SHEL for the year under consideration based on the information received from the GST Authorities. Finally, in para-11.10, the Assessing Officer has referred the information as provided by the GST Department regarding the bogus entities viz., M/s. Rayon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Sunil Hightech Engineer Ltd., Based on the said information, the Assessing Officer has made the disallowance of the sub-contract payments made to M/s. SHEL to the tune of Rs.10,53,44,877/-. It is manifest from the assessment order that the impugned payment of sub- contract expenses made to M/s. SHEL was not part of the seized material found and seized during the course of search, on the basis of which, the proceedings u/sec.153C of the Act were initiated. It is pertinent to note that the initiation of the proceedings u/sec.153C of the Act are depending upon the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that 17 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 incriminating material found during the course of search and seizure action belonging/pertaining to the person other than the searched person disclosed undisclosed income for particular assessment year(s) or the entire block of six assessment years. Therefore, depending upon the fact that the incriminating material found during the course of search and seizure action pertaining to the assessee i.e., a person other than the searched person must disclose an undisclosed income of one or more than one assessment year for initiation of proceedings u/sec.153C of the Act for those assessment years. Unlike the provisions of sec.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer is not bound to initiate the proceedings u/sec.153C of the Act for all the six years, but, only when the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the material found and seized during the course of search pertains to the person other than the searched person and also disclosed undisclosed income for some of the assessment years or all the six assessment years, the Assessing Officer has to initiate the proceedings u/sec.153C of the Act accordingly. In the case on hand, it is evident that the seized 18 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 material/incriminating material as referred by the Assessing Officer in the satisfaction note does not disclose any undisclosed income for the assessment year under consideration and, therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material disclosing any undisclosed income for the year under consideration, there was no basis for initiation of the proceedings u/sec.153C of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-III, Pune vs., Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC) while dealing with an identical issue has held in paras 14 to 19 as under :
“14. We have bestowed our due consideration to the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties.
At the outset, it needs to be highlighted that the assessment order passed by the AO on August 7, 2008 covered eight Assessment Years i.e. Assessment Year 1999-2000 to Assessment Year 2006-07. As noted above, insofar as Assessment Year 1999-2000 is concerned, same was covered under Section 147 of the Act which means in respect of that year, there were re-assessment proceedings. Insofar as Assessment Year 2006-07 is concerned, it was fresh assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, insofar as assessment under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Act is concerned, it was in respect of Assessment Years 2000-01 to 2005-06. Out of that, present appeals relate to four Assessment Years, namely, 19 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 2000-01 to 2003-04 covered by notice under Section 153C of the Act. There is a specific purpose in taking note of this aspect which would be stated by us in the concluding paragraphs of the judgment.
In these appeals, qua the aforesaid four Assessment Years, the assessment is quashed by the ITAT (which order is upheld by the High Court) on the sole ground that notice under Section 153C of the Act was legally unsustainable. The events recorded above further disclose that the issue pertaining to validity of notice under Section 153C of the Act was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and the Tribunal permitted the assessee to raise this additional ground and while dealing with the same on merits, accepted the contention of the assessee.
First objection of the learned Solicitor General was that it was improper on the part of the ITAT to allow this ground to be raised, when the assessee had not objected to the jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act before the AO. Therefore, in the first instance, it needs to be determined as to whether ITAT was right in permitting the assessee to raise this ground for the first time before it, as an additional ground.
The ITAT permitted this additional ground by giving a reason that it was a jurisdictional issue taken up on the basis of facts already on the record and, therefore, could be raised. In this behalf, it was noted by the ITAT that as per the provisions of Section 153C of the Act, incriminating material which was seized had to pertain to the Assessment Years in question and it is an undisputed fact that the documents which were seized did not establish any co-relation, document-wise, with these four Assessment Years. Since this requirement under Section 153C of the Act is essential for assessment under that provision, it becomes a jurisdictional fact. We find this reasoning to be logical 20 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 and valid, having regard to the provisions of Section 153C of the Act. Para 9 of the order of the ITAT reveals that the ITAT had scanned through the Satisfaction Note and the material which was disclosed therein was culled out and it showed that the same belongs to Assessment Year 2004-05 or thereafter. After taking note of the material in para 9 of the order, the position that emerges therefrom is discussed in para 10. It was specifically recorded that the counsel for the Department could not point out to the contrary. It is for this reason the High Court has also given its imprimatur to the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal. That apart, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, argued that notice in respect of Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 was even time barred.
We, thus, find that the ITAT rightly permitted this additional ground to be raised and correctly dealt with the same ground on merits as well. Order of the High Court affirming this view of the Tribunal is, therefore, without any blemish. Before us, it was argued by the respondent that notice in respect of the Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 was time barred. However, in view of our aforementioned findings, it is not necessary to enter into this controversy.”
10.3. Thus, it is now settled proposition of law that for initiating the proceedings u/sec.153C of the Act, the incriminating material which was seized had to pertain to the assessment year(s) to establish the co-relation document-wise with each assessment year to disclose undisclosed income of the assessee. It is also held that this 21 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 requirement u/sec.153C of the Act is essential for the assessment under that provision as it is a jurisdictional fact. Therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot assume the jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings u/sec.153C of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material having a link with a particular assessment year and disclosing undisclosed income of the assessee. The decisions relied upon by the learned CIT-DR is entirely in a different context of the matter as it is not a case of initiation of proceedings u/sec.153A of the Act based on the recovery or detection of the documents/incriminating material impounded during the course of search or investigation in continuation of the search. Accordingly, those decisions relied upon by the Learned CIT-DR will not help the case of the Department. The learned CIT(A) after considering all the relevant facts has quashed the notice issued u/sec.153C of the Act as well as the consequential assessment order for the year under consideration in paras 6 to 6.3.11 of the order as under :
22 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 23 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 24 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 25 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 26 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 27 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 28 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 29 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 30 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 31 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 32 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 33 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 34 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 35 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 36 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 11. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above as well as various Judgments relied upon by the learned AR and the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., Singhad Technical Education Society (supra), we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A). The same is upheld.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th October, 2025.