DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. RAJNI MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

4. Whether the statement of employees and other persons recorded during the course of search constitutes incriminating material as defined by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court on the case of Saumya Construction (P) Ltd (2017) 81 taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat) where the Hon'ble Court has defined incriminating material to be material found during search or requisition which reveals undisclosed income?

5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,16,56,000/-made on basis of incriminating material on account of production of cigarette in the absence of plausible explanation by the assessee, without going into the merit of the case?

6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,03,84,000/- mode on basis of incriminating material on account of production of cigarette filter in the absence of plausible explanation by the assessee, without going into the merit of the case?

and Ors. Assessment Years: 2011-12 and Ors. 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs 10,25,300/- made on account of unaccounted money u/s 69A of the Act in the absence of plausible explanation by the assessee without going into the merit of the case?

8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”

5. The Ld. DR however, objected to the deletion of the additions by the Ld. first appellate authority, on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal in form 36.

6. Per contra the Ld. AR of the assessee, filed a copy of the order of the tribunal in the case of Mr Chandra Sekhar Marwah in 110 to 113 and 105 , 108 and 179 o 181 Asr / 2024, dated 18th October, 2024, covering Asst years 2011-12 to 2019- 20, and submitted that the assessee relies upon the order of the tribunal for the entire group of cases and has prayed for dismissing the revenue appeal .

“Therefore, Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly laid down the scope of assessment u/s. 153A and held the pre-condition of initiation of assessment proceeding u/s 153A for a particular year is the existence of seized material in that year. In case, there is no incriminating material, AO cannot assess or reassess the income.

5.4.2 The basic test of any document being qualified to be incriminating is that it must have some indication of undisclosed transaction/activity, which is not reflected in the books of account or return of income of the person. Therefore, any addition on the basic of these documents, which is not incriminating, cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT, Central-3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. reported at 150 Taxmann.com 257 (SC) (2023).

5.4.3 Thus, is observed that the addition has been made on the basis of estimation. The AO has mentioned that no document in support of income declared as business income has been provided by the appellant. Further, no incriminating document has been found during the search to indicate that loan taken from Wakeup Portfolio Management Services Pvt Ltd and in respect of investment in buildings.

5.4.4 In view of the above stated legal position and the facts discussed above, in view of the binding nature of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. and Ors. Assessment Years: 2011-12 and Ors. Ltd (supra), the additions made by the AO which is not based on incriminating material, is not found sustainable and hence deleted.

5.4.5 This decision of Hon'ble Apex Court In the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd has been followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of 'King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 4326/2023 and PCIT Vs. S.S. Con. Build Ltd. reported in 445 ITR 506. Therefore, this issue has now been settled. Also, Hon'ble CBDT has issued Instruction vide Instruction No. 1 dated 23.08.2023 [F No. 279/MISC./M-54/2023-ITJJ in which certain directions have been issued by the Hon'ble CBDT that how the effect to such judgment is to be given. In view of this decision in the Abhisar Buildwell case and in view the Instruction of the Hon'ble CBDT, AO is free to examine the possibility of taking action u/s. 147/148 of the Act subject to fulfillment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act.

Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed.

5,5 Other Grounds of Appeal Since the addition has been deleted on the issue of no incriminating material was found during the course of search, therefore the addition on this account in various grounds of appeal become infructuous and academic in nature. Hence, require no further adjudication.

Chander Sheikhar Marwah), on 29/10/2020, no incriminating documents has been found and there is no SEIZURE of any incriminating materials by the search party.

14. The summary are as follows:

Trade name: Proprietor / Partner / Director PAN Excise / VAT /GST

M/s IJM International Mr Satish Kumar ( prop) AUNPK5953H AUNPK5953HEM001

M/s Inayat Global Pvt Ltd Mr Balram and AACCI8462M AACCI8462MEM001 Mr Vinod Kumar ( Directors )

M/s NAGAHA SONS Mr Kapil Arora ( Proprietor ) AGOPA3579N AGOPA3579NEM001

M/S Karsh Enterprises Mr Jaswinder Singh ( Prop ) EFZPS6418J EFZPS6418JEM001

Names of Persons Locus satndi of the Main contents of their deposed who deposed persons in relation to depositions: before Search team : search : (page 18 of Remand )

Vinod Kumar Director Inayat The Assessee Mr Chander Global Pvt Ltd Sheikhar Marwaha has been controlling the whole business Sh Balram Director Inayat of all cigarette manufacturing Global Pvt Ltd units existing in Nakodar for many years. Baldish Singh Director IJM Enterprises Unaccounted manufacturing Private Ltd and production of cigarette Authorised Signatory takes place in the units and M/s Karsh Enterprise production is carried out at night shifts, with generators. Sukhpal singh Employee All salaries and wages are disbursed in cash and thre are approximately 22 employees Kapil Arora Director Inderjeet Sons per shift. Enterprise Pvt Ltd and No record of of raw material Proprietor of Nagahia Sons purchase and dispatch of Deepak Kumar Supervisor Iniyat Global finished goods are preserved Different brands of cigarette are manufactured and all the above persons has admitted themselves as Employees of the Assessee.

“The Ld DR , in course of appeal , relied on the assessment order and the contents of the remand report submitted by the AO in appellate proceedings , and argued that the AO has made additions based on the statements of various employees and proprietors / directors of M/s Inayat Global Private Limited, M/s Karsh Enterprises, M/s IJM International , M/s Nagahia Sons, recorded, in course of survey u/s 133A at the premises of the aforesaid concerns and also on the basis of statements of employees of the assessee recorded at the premises of the assessee, u/s 132(4) of the Act 61.

The Ld DR further relied upon the statement of oath given by the employee of the assessee Mr Baldish Singh , alleged to be accountant ,of the assessee , with reference to the impounded registers and documents , A-15 ( electricity bills in name of assessee and son ) , A-2 ( relating to tax invoice of cut tobaccos ) , A-8 ( evidence of double shift production ) , A-13 ( documents bearing signatures and stamp of Excise officials ) , to support the calculation and computation made by the AO on the basis of such deposition and statements , to arrive at the undisclosed quantity of production and subsequent sales of such goods and for determination of suppressed income on such undisclosed sales , which is the subject matter of addition in the assessment order.

In other words the crux of his argument is that , even though no incrimiating materials has been found in this search at the premises of the assessee, the deposition and the statements, as recorded by the search and survey team at the premises of the assessee and other four parties , given by the employees and other person , present at the search and survey premises, can be considered as incriminating material , for the purpose of initiating proceedings u/s 153A of the Act 61 , and the Ld CIT(A) was not legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 22.41 crores, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of “ Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd ” , and in support of his contention the Ld DR relied upon the judgment of the Honb’le Gujrat High court in the case of PCIT vs Saumya Constructions ( P ) Ltd. 387 ITR 529 ( Gujrat ) dated 14th march, 2016, ( which incidently is much earlier to the Hon’ble Apex court judgment in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd passed on 24th April, 2023 ) .

As such Ld. DR prayed for restoration of the assessment order.”

“On the other hand the Ld AR of the assessee , at the onset referred to the fourth proviso of section 153A of the Act 61 , to submit that in the instant case , that the AO does not have any material whatsoever in his possession , on the basis of which he could issue a notice u/s 153A of the Act 61 .

The relevant portion reads as under:

Provided also that no notice for assessment or reassessment shall be issued by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment year or years unless— (a) the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more in the relevant assessment year or in aggregate in the relevant assessment years; (b) the income referred to in clause (a) or part thereof has escaped assessment for such year or years; and (c) the search under section 132 is initiated or requisition under section 132A is made on or after the 1st day of April, 2017.

Thereafter, he further submits that whatever documents that has been impounded and referred to in the assessment order and the remand report , has been impounded from the premises of the four parties who are engaged in the manufacturing activity and was under survey u/s 133A of the Act 61, and all such entries has been duly recorded in their respective books ( including central excise returns and GST returns ) and books of accounts and regular returns filed in normal course and duly considered in respective hands in assessment proceedings, to which the assessee is not involved , because all the other four parties , are separate and distinct from each other and in the instant case nothing has been SEIZED from the premises of the assessee .”

“Assessee arguments on merits of the case before the Tribunal:

Sir, it is submitted that addition has been made in the hands of assessee for the reason that as per Ld. AO assessee carried unaccounted production of cigarettes/filter during the year under consideration but there is reference in the assessment order to substantiate the fact that there was any unaccounted production for the year under consideration. There was no material found during the search which could prove/show that assessee carried unaccounted production.

Sir, during the course of assessment proceedings notices were issued to the assessee to which assessee stated as under:

“Neither I nor my family have any business interest in the companies/firm dealing in manufacturing of cigarettes. In this connection it is submitted as follows:

• It is fact that my family own business premises of the factory where the business of manufacturing of cigarette has been conducted. • The person to whom we have rented out the property is running the business. • The Excise license /GST number/VAT number is in the name of the person who is running the business • The rent deed of the premises is already available with your goodself in the seized record and there is also an affidavit confirming the fact that the same person is running business in his own name and we do not have any business connection with him.”

Sir, it is submitted that addition has been made in the hands of assessee for the reason that as per Ld. AO assessee carried unaccounted production of cigarettes/filter during the year under consideration, whereas it relevant to consider the following points:

2. That no unaccounted purchase was found during the search.

3. That no unaccounted/unexplained diary was found during the search. 4. That no unaccounted/excess/short stock was found during the search. 5. That no unaccounted production was found during the search. 6. That no unaccounted machinery was found during search. 7. That no unaccounted labour was found during the search. 8. That no unauthorized movement of stock was found during the search. 9. That no unaccounted debtor/creditor/expense was found during the search. 10. That no proof of under billing / over billing was found during the search. 11. That no mismatch have been found with VAT/GST Authorities during the search. 12. That RG-1 registers, books, documents of the respective concerns were found and seized which duly reconciled with returns and books/balance sheets filed to the departments.

Sir, relevant facts of the case of asessee are submitted as follows:

• All the time, when manufacturing process were undertaken from 2012 to 2017, it was mandatory as per para 10 of instructions dated 24.12.2008 issued vide F. No. 224/37/2005 by CBEC that round the clock presence of central excise office in the factory is required to control and supervise the operation of cigarettes. Copy of said circular is enclosed herewith. • The central excise official marked with seal the production machinery when they leave the factory premises and deseal the same only on our request for production. This fact can be verified from the RG 1 register of the respective firms/companies which was filed before the assessment and appellate proceedings. and Ors. Assessment Years: 2011-12 and Ors. • Ld. AO during assessment proceedings made enquiry from Central Excise department wherein the sale/ production had been confirmed. • That Ld. AO during post search enquiry issued hundreds of letter to different persons to enquire about the purchase and sales made out of books of accounts but failed to establish that any transaction of sales or purchases made outside the books of accounts. • That assessee and related respective concerns are regularly filing income tax return and assessee has disclosed and filed true facts to all the authorities. • That your attention is drawn to the fact that M/s IJM International, M/s Inayat Global Pvt. Ltd, M/s Karsh Enterprises, M/s Nagahia Sons were in cigarette manufacturing and since beginning of this there was round the clock presence of Central Excise Officer, so that there is no unauthorized removal of goods and there is proper supervision and control over operations of the these concerns. Thus unaccounted sales/production is not possible as the premises were thoroughly checked by the Excise department and was totally under the control of Excise department. The circular dated 01.05.2017 no.1055/04/2017-CX is enclosed herewith which justifies the claim of assessee. Thus there is no possibility of unauthorized/unaccounted production. • The copy of RG-1 which reflects daily production and bears the signature of excise authority/officer who is supervising the production of the respective concerns along with other relevant details with respect to machinery etc which was filed before the assessment and appellate proceedings. These registers are part of seized material also and this fact can be verified from the Ld. AO also. • That the premises were totally under the control of excise department. The goods were removed with the authorization of the Superintendent only. When the productions stops the machines were sealed with proper stamping on it and later next day when production starts the seal was removed by the superintendent only and there was no interference by the assessee. • The addition made in the hands of assessee raises the question on the excise authorities because the production in the respective concerns was always under their supervision and monitored by them, more so when office has already obtained information from the Central Excise Department in this respect. and Ors. Assessment Years: 2011-12 and Ors. • That these facts were stated to the ld. AO also during the assessment proceedings also but he has not rebutted the same in the entire body of assessment order and merely relied on statement recorded. • Sir, if the entire working is viewed by the Central Excise officer round the clock there is no chance of unaccounted production or under reported manufacturing .

Sir, no attention was given to the above stated points nor to our submissions and the AO never rebutted our facts and mentioned only the statement of the employees recorded during search. Whereas , no attention was given to the facts that the employees whose statement has been considered were contradicting and changing there own statements and they were recorded under pressure and they threatened time to time during the course of recording of statements.”

baseless and without considering the fact that neither assessee nor his family members have interest in these firms. They have only given factory premises on rent which has been evident from the rent deeds seized during the course of search. Further the facts contradictory to the allegations made against assessee is given as follows:

• All the four unit where the business of cigarette is being run were monitored by Central Excise department till June, 2017. • Time to time inspection was made by the superintendent level officer of these units and during search your goodself seized record of the same wherein no officer from 2012 to 2017 ever made any comment about the ownership of these business at the time of inspection or audit. and Ors. Assessment Years: 2011-12 and Ors. • All the time, when manufacturing process were undertaken from 2012 to 2017, it was mandatory as per para 10 of instructions dated 24.12.2008 issued vide F. No. 224/37/2005 by CBEC that round the clock presence of central excise office in the factory is required to control and supervise the operation of cigarettes. Copy of said circular is enclosed herewith. • Had assessee or family were having any interest in the said business then the officer sitting all the time there and the officer monitoring production from time to time must have pointed out that the real owner are not the same who are running the business.

1) SUBMISSIONS ON LEGAL GROUND THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH:

During the year assessee was engaged in the Trading and real estate business and has filed his original returns for all the years and declared his income which is assessed and processed u/s 143(1) of the Act by the department before the date of search.

A search /seizure operation was conducted on business as well as at the residential premises of IJM Group wherein the contention was raised against the assessee that he is engaged in the alleged business of manufacturing cigarettes / filters during the year and the same has been unaccounted by the assessee in his returned income.

Sir it is submitted that no incriminating material was found during the course of search. The addition is made on the basis of estimation and assumption and on the basis of alleged statement of employees of the assessee recorded at the time of search during the FY. 2020-21 whereas no documents pertaining the years under consideration were found during the search and seizure operation.

Sir, the entire addition was made on account of alleged unaccounted production of cigarettes/filter that too on the basis of the statement of the various persons recorded at the time of survey /search operation conducted on 29.10.2020, wherein no documents or evidence were found in respect to any products / manufacturing for sale for cigarettes / filter. Moreover statements of the employees were taken under pressure as they were continuously provoked and threatened by the sections of income tax Act that would be imposed to them and also those statements were contradicting.

Therefore, present case is a case where no proceedings for AY 2011-12 to AY 2019-20 were pending on the date of search and hence the said assessment did not abate. Therefore, in such a situation when the assessment has attained finality and has not abated and no incriminating material qua impugned addition was found as a result of search, which is evident from a plain reading of the assessment order, which also mentions that addition has been made only on the basis of statement recorded during search.

Sir, this issue is also settled by The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of PCIT- 3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 6580 of 2021 vide order dated 24.04.2023 in which it is made clear that no addition can be made in case no incriminating material was found during search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act. This fact is also accepted by the Hon’ble CIT(A)-5 in his order and considering this he passed order in the favour of assessee. In support of this reliance is being placed upon the following decisions:

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. vs. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. FERNS 'N' PATELS & ORS. (2017) 152 DTR 153(Del.)

Search and Seizure—New scheme of assessment in search cases—Validity of invocation of Section 153A—On basis of documents recovered during search and seizure operation, notice u/S. 153A was issued to Assessee—AO invoking section 153A passed assessment order against assessee—CIT(A) and Tribunal held that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A for said AYs was bad in law—Held, if no incriminating material was found during course of search in respect of an issue, then no additions in respect of any issue could be made to assessment under Section 153A and 153C—There was no such statement in present case which could be said to constitute admission by Assessee of failure to record any transaction in accounts of Assessee for AYs in question—Disclosure made in sum was only for year of search and not for earlier years— As already noticed, books of accounts maintained by Assessee in present case was accepted by AO—In case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-III) v. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del) Court held that completed assessments could be interfered with by AO while making assessment under Section 153 A only on basis of some incriminating material unearthed during course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in course of original assessment—Assessment in respect of each of six assessment years was separate and distinct assessment—U/s.153A, assessment had to be made in relation to search or requisition, namely, in relation to material disclosed during search or requisition—If in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating material was found, no addition or disallowance could be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A and earlier assessment should have to be reiterated—There was no such statement in present case which said to constitute an admission by Assessee of failure to record any transaction in accounts of Assessee for AYs in question—Court was of view that ITAT was justified in holding that invocation of Section 153A by Revenue for AYs 2000-01 to 2003-04 was without any legal basis as there was no incriminating material qua each of those AYs.

CIT-II, Thane vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom HC) IT: No addition can be made in respect of assessments which have become final if no incriminating material is found during search.

It is submitted, at the cost of repetition, that there was no incriminating material found during Search qua. It is an admitted fact that original return was filed and later it was processed and search in the present case was carried upon on 2020 that is much after the date of completion of processing. Therefore, in view of above submissions and judgments, jurisdiction assumed by Ld. AO u/s 153A/143(3) is bad in law and impugned assessment order may please be quashed.

2) SUBMISSIONS ON THE LEGAL GROUND THAT ADDITION IS BASED ON STATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES ONLY, WHICH WAS RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH.

It is submitted that in the present case addition is made on the basis of statement of employees recorded during the search which is not supported by any credible evidence. Sir, in this case addition is made on the basis of statements of employees only and not the basis of statement of assessee himself or his family. Moreover statements of the employees were taken under pressure as they were continuously provoked and threatened by the sections of income tax Act that would be imposed to them and also those statements were contradicting. These statements recorded and utilized as the sole basis for making addition in the hands of assessee group is not at all supported/corroborated/substantiated by any credible material/document/loose sheet etc. In the entire body of assessment order Ld. AO is merely relying and reproducing the statement of employees only and these are not supported/corroborated/substantiated by any evidence or document.

Sir, your attention is drawn to of the Assessment order where in the addition is made only on the basis of statement of employees recorded during the search and no incriminating material was found during search which could support the statements made against the assessee group.

Sir, moreover proceedings are not justifiable wholly on the basis of sworn statement recorded in the course of search/survey in the absence of any other tangible evidence available with the Assessing Officer as the material collected and the statement obtained u/s 131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act, made it clear that the materials collected and the statement recorded during the survey under Section 133A were not conclusive piece of evidence by itself. Following the circular F.No.286/2/2003 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 10.3.2003, it was

Observation of the Hon’ble Tribunal in ITA / 110/ASR/2024

“13. For the reasons stated here in above, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra) and the decisions of the other High Courts taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of the completed assessments in absence of any incriminating material.

and Ors. Assessment Years: 2011-12 and Ors. i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.”

DCIT v. Ankush Marwaha in 384 to 388 and 383/Asr/2024 for Asstt. Years: 2012-13 to 2017-18 and 2018-19:

DCIT v. Ankur Marwaha in & 266, 337 to 340, 382 and 389 & 390 /Asr/2024 for Asst Years: 2011-12 to 2019-20.

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of Id. CIT(A) is perverse as CIT(A) has deleted the addition made in assessment u/s 153A by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd and holding that in the assessment order the AO has not recognized any incriminating material found during search whereas AO made addition based on the statement of employees recorded during search which constitutes incriminating document?

2. Whether the decision of Id. CIT(A) that addition made on the basis of statement of employees and other persons recorded during the course of search which are not corroborated with any evidence cannot be said to be based on incriminating material, is in contradiction to the decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (p) Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat) where the Hon'ble Court has defined incriminating material to be material found during search or requisition which reveals undisclosed income?

3. Whether the statement of employees and other persons recorded during the course of search constitutes incriminating material as defined by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (p) Ltd. [2017] 81 taxtnann.com 292 (Gujarat) where the Hon'ble Court has defined incriminating material to be material found during search or requisition which reveals undisclosed income?

4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by AO u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2016-17 where the addition has been made on the basis of incriminating material in the A. Y. 2021- 22 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar Sahson, Allahabad in Civil Appeal Nos. 7738 7739/2021, 7736 7737 /2021.7732-7735/2021 and 7710 7743/2021 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has and Ors. Assessment Years: 2011-12 and Ors. upheld the order of Allahabad High Court and held that once during search undisclosed income is found on unearthing the incriminating material during the search, the AO would assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income even in case of completed/unabated assessments?

8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the unexplained business receipts of Rs.2,03,8,000/- on account of unaccounted production of cigarette filters in the absence of plausible explanation by the assessee, without going into the merit of the case?

7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”

DCIT v. Ankur Marwaha in 337 to 340, 382 and 389 & 390 /Asr/2024 for Asst Years: 2012-13 to 2019-20.

DCIT v. Rajni Marwaha in and 249 to 251/Asr/ 2024 for Asstt. Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 to 2019-20.

2014-15 in Form No. 36 are as follows:

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of Id. CIT(A) is perverse as CIT(A) has deleted the addition made in assessment u/s 153A by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd and holding that in the assessment order the AO has not recognized any incriminating material found during search whereas in para 19 of the Assessment Order, the AO has clearly mentioned that the incriminating material was seized from the residence of assessee?

2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by AO u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y. 2014-15 and ignoring the fact that the addition on the basis of incriminating material was made in the A.Y. 2021-22 and also ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar Sahson, Allahabad in Civil Appeal Nos.7738- 7739/2021, 7736-7737/2021, 7732-7735/2021 and 7740-7743/2021 has upheld the order of Allahabad High Court and held that once during search undisclosed income is found on unearthing the incriminating material during the search, the AO would assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total Income even in Case of completed/unabated assessments?

4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the unexplained business receipts of Rs. 8,85,600/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the absence of plausible explanation by the assessee, without going into the merit of the case?

5. Whether n the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,550,00,000/- on account of unverified transaction of unsecured loan received as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the absence of plausible explanation by the assessee, without going into the merit of the case?

6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 36,94,002/- on account of unverified transaction of payment Land Use (CLU) received as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the absence of plausible explanation by the assessee, without going into the merit of the case?

7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appe DCIT v. Rajni Marwaha in to 251/Asr/ 2024 for Asstt. Years: 2017- 18 to 2019-20.

Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 30.10.2025