GURUCHARAN SINGH HORA,RAIPUR vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, DELHI

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1072270642(1), dated 17.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Learned counsel representing the assessee raises his first and foremost legal argument that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on fact in framing the impugned section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) assessment than a “regular” one under section 143(3) of the Act; dated 30th March, 2022, which has been wrongly upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

That being the case, learned CIT(DR) not only refers to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in para 10 at page 23 that the departmental authorities had issued a yet another warrant of authorization dated 19.11.2020 but also he places before us a copy of the comments dated 22.12.2025 coming from the DCIT, Central Circle-08, New Delhi, in support thereof.

We have given out thoughtful consideration to the asseessee’s instant first and foremost legal argument. We find reason to accept the same. This is for the precise reason that apart from the impugned search dated 27.02.2020 carried out on M/s. Raipur Group of cases which followed the Assessing Officer’s section 153A notice, learned departmental authorities appear to have issued an yet another warrant of authorization on 19.11.2020 which renders the impugned assessment year AY 2020-21 as that covered in the 2 | P a g e block of six assessment years under 153A of the Act. Rejected accordingly.

Next substantive issue between the parties is that of assessee’s substantive ground no. 1 challenging section 127(2) transfer order from ITO-1, Raipur to ACIT, Central Circle-1, Delhi. We are of the considered view that neither there is any material on record either indicating the same to be not sustainable in law no such a transfer of jurisdiction could form subject matter of challenge before the tribunal. Rejected accordingly.

Lastly comes the third substantive issue between the parties wherein the assessee is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action, inter alia, adding of Rs.1,36,03,896/- as well as latter twin cash sums of Rs.51,60,520/- and Rs.51,45,000/- as his “unexplained” money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in assessment order and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

We notice from a perusal of the case records that the above former as well as the last sum are based on the relevant evidence collected from the official premises i.e. B-27/7, Near Ashadeep Hospital, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur belonging to M/s. Gentle Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. than from the assessee’s possession. This 3 | P a g e tribunal’s earlier order in assessee’s case itself (AY: 2019-20), dated 10.12.2025 has already settled the issue in light of PCIT Vs. Anand Kumar Jain (2021) 452 ITR 384 (Del.) that such an addition based on evidence collected from a third party’s premises (even in the same search), could only be made by taking recourse of section 153C proceedings. We thus delete both these impugned additions for this precise reason alone.

We now proceed to deal with the remaining addition amount of Rs.51,60,520/- found/seized at the assessee’s premises i.e. C- 39/40 and C-41, Sector-4, Devendra Nagar, Raipur. The assessee could hardly dispute this clinching fact before us during the course of hearing. We thus invoke section 292C of the Act to draw the necessary presumption that the above cash found belongs to the assessee only wherein he has failed to offer any cogent explanation all along. The same stand confirmed therefore. No other ground or argument has been pressed.