SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: [ This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)- 3, Lucknow dated 21.08.2015, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the orders passed by the ld. AO under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.01.2013. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “01. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of the assessment order u/s 153C of the Act, particularly as the juri ictional requirement of recording independent satisfaction, as contemplated u/sl53C, by the respective Assessing Officers, have not been met with, rendering the orders of Assessment void-ab-initio.

A.Y. 2012-13

hence the entire assessment gets vitiated as the juri ictional requirements of Section 153C have not been met.

Reliance is placed on the following Judgments/decisions:
Vinay Pratap Singh

A.Y. 2012-13

1)Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Thermal Power
Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC)

2)Judgment of Hon'ble Juri ictional High Court in the case of Mohan Dairy Vs. Union of India (2007) 163 Taxman 274 (All.).”

A.Y. 2012-13

asking for details, which as the ld. AO records, were duly complied with. From the scrutiny, the ld. AO ascertained the assessee was engaged in the business of sale and purchase of reliance pre-paid sim cards / vouchers and electric items. The ld.
AO required the assessee to furnish explanation regarding the source and purpose of the bank deposits, including the cash deposit amounting to Rs. 90,81,650/- in A/c
No. 07222020001730 with HDFC Bank, Hazratganj and Rs. 11,51,900/- in A/c No.
021401525367 with ICICI Bank, Gomti Nagar. When asked to explain these deposits, the assessee submitted that total deposits of Rs. 3,50,49,117/- was made through RTGS and Rs. 1,38,95,950/- was made by cash in four bank accounts of the assessee. It was further submitted that the assessee had carried out sale/purchase of Parag milk products for nearly four months and total purchases of Rs.23,81,919/- had been made during the year. Regarding the RTGS deposits, a statement from M/s
Reliance Communication Limited was furnished and placed on record. The ld. AO thereafter noticed that the following cash deposits had been made in the bank accounts of the assessee; a. Rs. 2,32,800/- in A/c No. 1704000100316463 with P&B, Jokhwa, Kushinagar, U.P.
b. Rs. 11,51,900/- in A/c No. 021401525367 with ICICI, Gomti Nagar c. Rs. 34,29,600/- in A/c No. 021405003554 with ICICI Bank, Gomti Nagar d. Rs. 90,81,650/- in A/c No. 07222020001730 with HDFC Bank, Hazratganj,
Lucknow e. Rs. 33,000/- in A/c No. 84822200014042 with Syndicate Bank, Indira Nagar,
Lucknow

In response to a query regarding the source of the bank accounts, the assessee submitted a cash flow statement showing month-wise cash sale, but the ld. AO records that no proof of sale or vouchers of any kind were produced to substantiate the claim. He noticed that out of the total cash deposit, transactions amounting to Rs. 23,81,919/- related to the sale / purchase of Parag milk products.
The balance was treated as unexplained and an addition of Rs. 1,16,66,126/- was accordingly added back to the income of the assessee.
Vinay Pratap Singh

A.Y. 2012-13

A.Y. 2012-13

6
Therefore, he dismissed this contention of the assessee also. Coming to the addition of Rs. 1,16,66,126/-, he held that the addition made could be considered as having been made under section 69 of the Act. The ld. AO had given a clear finding that despite number of opportunities provided to the assessee, the nature and source of the deposit of cash had not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee. During
Vinay Pratap Singh

A.Y. 2012-13

appeal proceedings also, apart from a vague submission that the deposit was related to the sale of sim cards of Reliance, the assessee was unable to co-relate the purchase with sales of sim cards in corresponding sales thereof. Furthermore, the ld. AO had also found that the deposit in the bank accounts related to talk time vouchers for which no voucher for purchase was produced. It was noted that the ld.
AO had excluded the RTGS/NEFT deposits referred to by the submissions and only made addition for cash deposits, as these deposits were not explained by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) held that the action taken by the ATS suggests that the deposits in the bank account of the assessee were made by Sh. Shafaat Ezaj Siddiqui and Sh. Tabish Mansoor, who were engaged in illegal activities. Therefore, the nature and source of cash in bank deposit was not proved to the satisfaction of the ld. AO and since the ld. AO had also not disclosed any profit on sale of Parag products an estimated addition @ 5% of turnover had been made by the ld. AO. With these comments, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,16,66,123/- made by the AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee.
6. The assessee is aggrieved at this dismissal of his appeal and has accordingly come before us. Sh. Swarn Singh, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) arguing the case of the assessee, submitted that the case had been selected for scrutiny against the provisions of the CBDT Circular No.10/2013. He invited our attention to page 165 of his paper book, which was the reply of the ld. AO to the RTI application filed by the assessee and pointed out, that the ld. AO had treated the case as a search assessment as per the response of the AO in the said RTI application. Therefore, the ld. AR submitted that before any action could be initiated against the assessee under section 153C, some incriminating material had to be found during the course of the search which would warrant the proceedings under section 153C. The ld. AR submitted that even though the assessment in this year was under the provisions of section 143(3), after the issue of the notice under section 142(1) (since it was the search year), the issue of that notice under section 142(1) could also be done only after recording of satisfaction of seizure of incriminating material against the assessee during the search. However, he
Vinay Pratap Singh

A.Y. 2012-13

submitted that the warrant of authorization (copy of which was placed in 144) was not issued in the name of the assessee but rather it was issued in the name of Sh.
Shafaat Ejaz Siddiqui and Sh. Tabish Mansoor. The ld. AR, thereafter invited our attention to a copy of the panchnama prepared in the said matter, which was placed on pages 146 to 155 of the paper book and argued that the panchnama clearly shows, that only cash belonging to Sh. Shafaat Ezaj Siddiqui and Sh. Tabish Mansoor was taken into custody and no documents were seized and taken into custody in the requisition proceeding under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the ld. AO had no occasion to record satisfaction as contemplated under section 153C of the Income Tax Act and consequently, the initiation of the impugned assessment order was itself bad in law. It was further submitted that the letter of the ITO, Ward-4(5), Lucknow to the Administrative Officer of the Commissioner of Income Tax DR-I, ITAT Lucknow, which was contained on page no. 156 of his paper book, showed that no satisfaction note had been found in the case records of Sh.
Tabish Mansoor. Accordingly, it was submitted that the initiation of proceedings in the case of the assessee was bad in law as it was in violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-3 vs. Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 43
taxman.com 446 (SC), the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT (Central) vs. Smt. Nirmala Keshwani (2017) 79 taxman.com 399 (All) and the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Satkar Fincap Limited vs. ACIT,
Central Circle-21, New Delhi (2016) 66 taxman.com 107 (Delhi-Trib). The ld. AR, thereafter, invited our attention to Instruction No. 10/2013, which had been cited by the ld. AO as the reason for selection of the case in scrutiny and pointed out that since no incriminating documents were seized during the search, the case of the assessee could not be picked up under clause 3(e) of the said instruction. When queried as to whether clause (i) of the said Instruction would apply to the case of the assessee, the ld. AR pointed out that the CBDT Instruction was quite clear that in such cases, the ld. AO was to record reasons and take approval from the juri ictional CCIT / DGIT before picking up the case for scrutiny. As the the reply of the AO to the RTI application showed, the case had not been taken up for scrutiny
Vinay Pratap Singh

A.Y. 2012-13

under clause 3(i) but under clause 3(e), therefore, it was required to fulfill the conditions precedent to issuance of notices in search cases ,as per the provisions of section of 153A and 153C. Furthermore, the letter of the ld. AO was evidence of the fact that the prior approval of the concerned CCIT / DGIT had not been taken. Thus, the selection of the assessee’s case for scrutiny, being in violation of CBDT
Instruction No. 10/2013, was void ab initio and dismissed as such. The ld. AR also invited our attention to the orders passed by the ITAT in ITA No.682 to 687/LKW/2015 in which the ITAT had allowed the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2011-12 holding as under:-
“4. We have heard rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. The facts in brief are that the Office of DIG, Anti-
Terrorist Squad, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on 17.08.2011 seized cash of Rs. 65,87,000/- from two persons namely Safaat Ejaz Siddiqui & Tabish
Mansoor. Since these persons could not explain the source/purpose of the cash and therefore, cash was seized by the ATS and consequently a warrant of authorization dated 17.08.2011 u/s. 132A of the Act was issued by the Director of Income Tax (Inv), Kanpur and was executed for requisition of the cash seized by Anti-Terrorist Squad, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order noted that in the course of requisition u/s. 132A of the Act in the cases of Shri Safaat
Ejaz Siddiqui & Tabish Mansoor information was provided by ATS regarding various bank accounts in the name of assessee Shri Vinay
Pratap Singh, Shri Rahat Ezaj Siddiqui and Shri Danish Khan. The AO observed that these persons were also made co-accused by the ATS as their bank account showed substantial deposit and withdrawals and in view of the above facts, satisfaction was recorded u/s. 153C of the Act and accordingly the cases of the assessee were reopened u/s. 153C and additions were made to the income in respective years regarding deposits in the bank account of the assessee. The ld. AR argued that assessment u/s. 153C of the Act in this case is void abinito because of the fact that no books of account were seized in the case of searched person and therefore, no books of account or other documents can be said to have been handed over to the AO of other person. In this respect, it is important to observe the contents of panchnama placed at paper book Pgs. 132 to 141. The panchnama shows that only cash belonging to, Safaat Ejaz Siddiqui & Tabish Mansoor i.e. principal searched person was taken into custody in the requisition proceedings u/s. 132A of the Act. No other document or books of account or bank statements were seized and if these were not seized, the question of handing over of these documents to AO of assessee does not arise and if that be the case the assessment of the assessee cannot be reopened u/s. 153C of the Act as Vinay Pratap Singh

A.Y. 2012-13

the finding of some document or asset belonging to other person is a sin qua non. In this respect, it is important to visit the provisions of Section 153C of the Act which for the sake of completeness are reproduced below:
“153C. (l) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having juri iction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue such other person notice and assess or reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A : Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having juri iction over such other person:”
5. The above provisions clearly establish that handing over of documents and or valuable articles or things are sine qua non for taking action u/s.
153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has made the additions on the basis of Bank account statements which were not seized during search but were provided afterwards by ATS to Assessing Officer.
6. The fact that copy of bank account on the basis of which the additions were made in the case of assessee was not seized during the search operation is also apparent from the findings of Assessing Officer read with copy of requisition u/s 132A, placed in P.B. page 126. The findings of the Assessing Officer along with contents of requisition u/s 132A are reproduced below:
“2. In the course of requisition u/s 132A of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the cases of Shri Shafaat Ezaj Siddiqui and Tabish Mansoor information was provided by the ATS regarding various bank accounts in the name of Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, Shri Rahat Ezaj Siddiqui and Shri
Danish Khan. These persons were also make co-accused by the STS as their bank accounts showed substantial deposits and withdrawals.”
The Assessing Officer has noted that during requisition u/s 132A in the case of Shafaat Ezaj Siddiqui and Tabish Mansoor, certain bank statements in their names and that in the name of assessee were provided by ATS.
However, a copy of requisition u/s 132A, placed in P.B. page 126, clearly shows the striking of column of books of account and on documents and requisition was only issued for taking the custody of assets which in the Vinay Pratap Singh

A.Y. 2012-13

present case is cash. Moreover, it is a fact that ATS during search proceedings did not seize anything other than cash which is apparent from the copy of Panchnama. Therefore, the findings of A.O. that in the course of requisition u/s 132A information was provided by ATS regarding bank accounts is not correct. In fact the bank statements were provided to A.O.
after proceedings of ATS which is further proved from the findings of ld.
CIT(A) as contained in para 4(5)(1) where he has mentioned that the details of bank account were communicated by ATS vide their letter
No.ATS-25-02-(01)/2011/4158 dated 25.08.2011. For the sake of completeness, the findings of ld. CIT(A) are also reproduced below:
“4(5)(i) In the instant case information was received from the office of the DIG, Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS), Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on 17.08.2011 regarding seizure of cash amounting to Rs. 65,87,000/- from two persons namely Shri Shafaat Ejaz Siddiqui & Shri Tabish
Mansoor. They could not explain the source/purpose of the cash and thus; the cash was seized by the ATS. Consequently, a warrant of authorization dated 17.08.2011 under section 132A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 was issued by the Director of Income Tax (Inv.)
Kanpur and was executed for requisition of the cash seized by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS), Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. During the course of action of the ATS, bank accounts of the searched persons as well as Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, the appellant were found."
Details of such bank accounts were communicated by the ATS vide their letter No. ATS-25-2-(01)/2011/4158 dated 25.08.211. The letter mentions two bank accounts of the appellant as under-
• HDFC Bank A/C No. 07222020001730
• ICICI Bank A/C No. 021401525357
These findings clearly demonstrate that a warrant of authorization dated
17/08/2011 under section 132A of Income Tax Act was issued by Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Kanpur and was executed for requisition of cash seized by the Anti-Terrorist Squad, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
7. The above findings of ld. CIT(A) clearly demonstrate that the copy of bank account of the assessee as well as searched person was obtained by ATS during the action of ATS and not during search. The copy of Panchnama specifically Pg. 136 states that search proceedings were closed on 17.08.2011 at 3.15 AM. The copy of panchnama further demonstrate that other than cash nothing was seized. The copy of bank accounts received by Assessing Officer from ATS vide their letter dated 25.8.2011 is after the close of search operations and cannot be said to be part of search material.
Therefore it can be concluded that copy of bank accounts on the basis of which the additions has been made were not seized during the search operation and therefore, cannot be said to have been handed over to the AO of other person in the present case and in the absence of handling over of any document belonging to the assessee the assessments cannot be said to have been made legally u/s. 153C and are therefore held to illegal being
Vinay Pratap Singh

A.Y. 2012-13

void ab initio. The Amritsar Bench in Special Bench order in the case of Sonu
Verma (Supra) has dealt with the issue of handling over of the documents by the Assessing Officer of the searched person to the AO of other person and has held that the handing over of documents by the AO of searched person, to AO of other person is necessary to start the proceedings u/s.
158BD of the Act. The question frame by special bench is reproduced below:
“Whether, the juri iction to complete block assessment under section 158BC is conferred on the Assessing Officer by service of a warrant of authorization under section 132A by a competent authority or on physical handling over the books of account/documents/assets etc. requisitioned, to Income-tax
Authority concerned?”
8. The above findings of the Tribunal are though with respect to Section 158BC of the Act, the provisions of section 158BC are in pari materia with those of Section 153A of the Act which implies that in respect of assessments u/s. 153A handing over of any documents to the Revenue authorities is a must and in the present case there was no document/statement requistoned by Income Tax Department other than cash therefore, the question of handing over of document by Assessing Officer of searched person to Assessing Officer of other person does not arise and in the absence of handing over of documents the provisions of Section 153C cannot be applied.”

A.Y. 2012-13

in the case of Raghuram Grih (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 21 taxman.com 461, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears 43
taxman.com 446 (SC) and the CBDT Circular No. 24/2015. In submission, the ld. AR argued that in the absence of the judicial fact of the case being covered under section 153C of the Act, the ld. AO erroneously treated the case relating to the assessee as, “search case” and thereafter arbitrarily selected the same for compulsory manual scrutiny in contravention of CBDT Instruction No. 10/2013
dated 5.08.2013. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arun Kumar and Ors 155 taxman 659 had held that a juri ictional fact was a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or Authority assumes juri iction of a particular matter and was the fact upon which the agencies power to act depend. If the juri ictional fact did not exist, the said authority could not act in its absence and if an authority wrongly assumes the existence of such a fact, the order can be questioned by a writ of certiorari. The underlying principle was that by erroneously assuming existence of a juri ictional fact, no authority could confer upon itself juri iction which is otherwise did not possess. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the existence of a juri ictional fact was a sine qua non or condition precedent for the exercise of power and since in the case of the assessee, no incriminating material had been recovered during the requisition (as evidenced from the panchnama) proceedings could not be initiated by treating the assessee’s case as a search case. It was argued that in several judgments where the scrutiny was completed in contravention of CBDT Instructions / Guidelines / Circulars, the resultant assessment order had been quashed. The ld. AR also argued that the approval given by the Addl CIT to the said assessment proceeding was mechanically given and therefore, even otherwise, the order was unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
8. Arguing on the merits of the case, ld. AR submitted that the assessee was an individual and engaged in the business as wholeseller/Retailer from sale of prepaid mobile recharge, PCO e-recharge and sale of data cards and Sale of Milk and Milk Products of M/s Parag Milk Foods Pvt Limited, under the name and style of Vinay Pratap Singh

A.Y. 2012-13

M/s. Amba Traders. The agreement of direct sale agent and local business associate of Reliance Communication was enclosed at Page No. 121-138 & copy of agreement of M/s. Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. was enclosed at P.B. No. 139-143 of the paper book. These details were submitted before the Ld. A.O. during the assessment proceedings vide reply dated 30.12.2013 appearing at Paper Book in page no. 108-
113. It was further submitted that looking to the nature of business, inter-alia sale of Reliance SIM Cards and recharge coupons was also made in cash, which is deposited in bank and from there cheques were issued to M/s. Reliance and M/s.
Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. and all sales were incorporated in Books of accounts. The business transactions were explained with examples. The Retailers list was also submitted which is appearing at P.B. No. 98-107. Ignoring all the evidences, the Ld.
A.O. arbitrarily made an addition of Rs. 1,15,47,031/- on account of cash deposit relating to sale of SIM Card, Prepaid Mobile Recharge, PCO e-recharge and sale of data cards etc, stating that no proof of sale or vouchers of any kind was produced by the appellant. The Id. A.O. further arbitrarily made an addition of Rs. 1,19,095/- being 5% of amount of sale/purchase of Parag Milk products. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition on incorrect facts, assumptions and surmises. During the course of assessment proceedings, the books of account was produced by the appellant vide letter dated 30-12-2013 and these were accepted by the A.O. The Ld
AO ignored the fact the cash sale of SIM card etc was duly incorporated in Books of accounts, which were audited. In making addition the Ld. A.O. totally ignored the nature of business and customary practice. It was a known fact that in certain types of business like sale of SIM cards etc., or, Sale of Liquor Or Retail sale of FMCG products specially during FY 2012-2013, substantial portion of sale was being done in cash. Therefore, such cash sale which is also incorporated in books of accounts cannot be treated as unexplained money. The addition made by the Ld AO amounted to double addition as the Cash Sales has already been entered into books of accounts. No cogent material was brought on record by AO which shows that the appellant a person of small means has earned so much money equivalent to Vinay Pratap Singh

A.Y. 2012-13

additions made by AO. Accordingly, it was prayed that even on merits, addition was fit to be dismissed.
9. On the other hand, Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR submitted that the case was not a case under section 153C but a case under section 143(3). It was further submitted that there was no restriction upon the Department to issue a notice under section 142(1) upon the assessee for failure to file a return of income and once such a notice was issued, the case could always be picked up for scrutiny thereafter. It was further submitted that since this was a case pertaining to the final assessment year, the field was wide open to the ld. AO and it was not a case covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell. Accordingly, additions could be made on all aspects of the assessee’s income and need not be restricted to incriminating material. The ld. DR further argued that since this was a case which taken up under section 143(3). The issue of approval under section 153D was not material to the facts of the case. Arguing on the merits of the matter, the ld. CIT DR argued that the assessee had failed to prove the source of the deposits because he had not produced any bills and vouchers that could justify the deposits into the said account. At end of the day, the assessee was required to explain the credits into the bank account, especially when there were allegations of the illegal nature of the activities of his business associates Sh. Shafaat Ejaz Siddiqui and Sh. Tabish
Mansoor. Since the assessee had miserably failed to account for the deposit in his bank account, the ld. AO was justified in making the addition.
10. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. We observe that in ITA Nos. 682 to 687/LKW/2015, the ITAT have clearly brought out the fact that the warrant of authorization dated 17.08.2011 under section 132A of the Income Tax Act issued by the DIT (Inv.), Kanpur was executed only for the cash seized by the ATS, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The panchnama further demonstrates that other than the cash, nothing else was seized. The ITAT has pointed out that the copy of the bank accounts received by the ld. AO from ATS vide their letter dated
25.08.2011, is after the close of search operations and cannot be said to be a part of Vinay Pratap Singh

A.Y. 2012-13

the search materials. Therefore, it can concluded that a copy of the bank accounts, on the basis of which the additions have been made, were not seized during the search operation and therefore, cannot be said to be handed over to the AO of the other person and in the absence of handing over of any such document belonging to the assessee, the assessments could not have been made legally under section 153C and were therefore, held to be void ab initio. We note that the juri ictional fact that must exist for a proceeding under section 153C to be initiated, is that some material must be recovered during the search which belongs to the assessee. In the instant case, the panchnama does not record that the bank accounts that were recovered were obtained by the Department as a result of the requisition under section 132A. Therefore, those bank accounts could not form the basis of a satisfaction note for initiation of proceedings under section 153C. It is true that this being the final assessment year, the notice that was required to be issued was a notice under section 142(1) and not under section 153C but we are not persuaded by the arguments of the ld. CIT DR that the Department could issue such notices in every case and therefore, pick up the case for scrutiny. To our mind, when the ld.
AO had classified the case as a search case, the notice under section 142(1) could only be issued pursuant to the satisfaction recorded under section 153C and in the absence of any incriminating material recovered during the search, such a satisfaction note could not have been prepared. Hence, to our mind, the notice under section 142(1) could not have been issued. Be that as it may, even if we were to accept the arguments of the ld. CIT DR, that a notice under section 142(1) could be issued in any case, there are guidelines laid down by the CBDT for selection of a case for compulsory scrutiny. As per Instruction No. 10/2013, a case could be selected for compulsory scrutiny if it was a search case. It could also be taken up for compulsory scrutiny if it was based on information received from another
Government Department but in this case, the ld. AO would have to record reasons for selection and obtain the prior approval of the concerned CCIT / DGIT for the initiation of such proceedings. We observe that the ld. AO, in the reply to the RTI application, has pointed out that the case was a search case. If that were so then the Vinay Pratap Singh

A.Y. 2012-13

juri iction to issue notice and select the case for scrutiny would only arise if materials relating to the assessee had been recovered during the search. Since, the said bank accounts were not recovered during the search, they could not form the basis of the satisfaction note and therefore could not lead to valid initiation of the proceedings against the assessee. If the case was treated as a case not of search but of information having been received from another Government agency, then the necessary procedure prescribed in Instruction No. 10/2013 was mandatorily to be followed i.e. prior approval would have had to be taken of the concerned CCIT /
DGIT and in the absence of such prior approval, the ld. AO’s action in taking up scrutiny of the case would be void ab initio. In either circumstance, we observe that proceedings against the assessee have not been validly initiated by the ld. AO. That being the case, we hold the consequent order to be void ab initio and annul it as such. Accordingly, ground nos. 1, 9, 11 and 12 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed.
As the assessment has been held to be void ab initio, the remaining grounds have been rendered infructuous and they are accordingly dismissed as such.
11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced on 17.10.2025 in open Court. [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY]
JUDICIAL MEMBER

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DATED: 17/10/2025
Sh