PUSHPANJALI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUSHPANJALI PALACE,DEHLI GATE,AGRA vs. DCIT, CEN CIR GHAZIABAD

Order : 19.09.2025\nORDER\nPER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM:\n1.\nThe assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned\nCommissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-III, Noida [“Ld. CIT(A)", for\nshort] dated 20.08.2024 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 raising\nfollowing grounds of appeal :-\n“1.\nThat on the facts and circumstances of the case and the\nprovision of law the Assessment Order passed by the learned\nAssessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3)/153C of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 dated 14.12.2019 is illegal, bad in law, without\njurisdiction and time barred.\n2.\nThat on the facts and circumstances of the case and the\nprovisions of the law, the proceedings initiated and notice issued\nu/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are illegal, bad in law,\nwithout jurisdiction and time barred and as such the Assessment\nOrder passed in consequence thereof also become illegal, bad in\nlaw, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation\n3.\nThat on the facts and the circumstances of the case and the\nprovisions of the Law the assessment framed is against the\nstatutory provisions of the act and without complying to the\nprocedures prescribed under section 153C of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 and as such assessment being bad in law deserves to be\nquashed.\n4.\nThat in view of the binding nature of Circular no.19/2019\ndated 14/08/2019 and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the\ncase, the UNDATED SATISFACTION NOTE without DIN and\nthe consequential impugned order of assessment dated 14.12.2019\nought to be treated as invalid and non est. That the UNDATED\nSATISFACTION NOTE appears to be an afterthought and\nrecorded after issuing notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nas the same was not provided to the assessee despite specific\nrequests made on 01.10.2019 and 14.10.2019 during the course of\nassessment proceedings and the same renders the entire\nproceedings without jurisdiction, illegal and void ab initio.\n5.\nThat the impugned SATISFACTION NOTE is vague and\ndocs not spell out and specify the assessment year for which it has\nbeen drawn and hence renders the entire assessment proceedings\nvoid ab initio.\n6.\nThat having regard to the facts and circumstances of the\ncase, the assumption of jurisdiction for passing of the impugned\nassessment order u/s 143(3)/153C dated 14.12.2019 is illegal, bad\nin law, inter alia for the reason that the approval u/s 153D has been\nissued/passed without DIN number as is mandatory as held in\nseveral judicial pronouncements and CBDT Circular No.19/2019\ndated 14.08.2019.\n7.\nThat the impugned assessment order dated 14.12.2019 does\nnot contain DIN on the body and, therefore, has no legal sanctity\nand liable to be quashed.\n8.\nThat the assessment under s.153C of the Act is void ab\ninitio since barred by limitation as per the applicable provisions of\nthird proviso to s.153B(1) of the IT Act as that was made for an\n assessment year beyond the stipulated period as laid down under\nthe applicable provisions of Section 153A and 153C of the Act.\n9.\nThat the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on\nfacts in not considering the various submissions made by the\nassessee and material evidences placed on record.\n10.\nThat the Learned Assessing Officer has and also not\nprovided the assessee an opportunity of cross examination of Shri\nGhanshyam Gupta or any other person who had purportedly given\nany adverse statement against the assessee was not provided\ndespite specific request made in this regard is in violation of the\nprinciples of natural justice.\n11.\nWithout prejudice to the above, the Learned Assessing\nOfficer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of\nRs.12,55,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69C of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 without any proper legal basis, evidence\nor material on record, hence, liable to be deleted.\"\n2.\nWith regard to condonation of delay in filing the appeal of the assessee,\nld. AR for the assessee submitted that the assessment in this case was\npassed under-section 143(3)/153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short\n'the Act') on 14.12.2019 after making unfounded additions. He further\nsubmitted that the assessee filed an appeal against the impugned\nassessment order before the ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida which has also been\ndecided against the assessee vide order 20.08.2024. He submitted that\nagainst the order of ld. CIT (A), the present appeal has thus been filed\nbefore ITAT on 21.02.2025. Ld. AR submitted that our counsel CA\nMradul Pathak is looking after the Income Tax matters of the company\nM/s. Pushpanjali Constructions Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, since the last 30\nyears and the appeal against the order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the Ld.\nCIT(A)-3, Noida was to be filed on or before 31.10.2024. Ld. AR\nsubmitted that assessee was given to understand that the counsel had\nprepared the appeal and the challan towards appeal filing fees was also\ndeposited on 16.10.2024 and even the draft appeal was also prepared after\nlogging on the ITAT portal and a copy of the same is also filed, although,\nthe same remained pending for filing due to some sudden exigencies in\nhis family. In this regard, the affidavit of the counsel to this effect along\nwith supporting documents is enclosed herewith. He submitted that the\ndelay in filing the appeal is quite unintentional and arising out of\nunavoidable circumstances and there was a genuine, reasonable and\nsufficient cause for the delay in filing of appeal and the same may please\nbe condoned. To support the same, ld. AR of the assessee relied on\nvarious judicial pronouncements. On the other hand, Ld DR objected to\nthe condonation of delay.\n3.\nWe have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In\nour considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in\nfiling the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal\nbefore the Tribunal.\n4.\nGround Nos.1, 9 and 11 are general in nature, hence not adjudicated. At\nthe time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed Ground Nos.2,\n3, 7 & 8, relating to initiation of proceedings u/s 153C and DIN issues\nhence the same are dismissed as not pressed.\n5.\nWith regard to Grounds 4, 5,6 and 10, relevant facts are, the assessee is\nPrivate Limited Company engaged in the business of real estate and\nconstruction. A search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 ('the Act') was conducted on 10.11.2017 at the premises of the\nassessee along with Sh. Rajeshwar Singh Yadav and others group of\ncases including Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta, who are not part of the group of\nthe assessee.\n6.\nOn the basis of the search carried out into the above parties, the case of\nthe assessee was reopened u/s 153C of the Act and the assessee was\nissued noticed u/s 153C for six assessment years. In response, for the\nimpugned year, the assessee filed the return of income on 17.10.2019 u/s\n153C, declaring total income at Rs.2,10,42,950, as originally filed u/s 139\n(1). For other years, no adverse view has been drawn.\n7.\nThe reasons for issuance of notice u/s 153C is based on the agreement to\nsell, which was found from the premises of Mr. Ghanshyam Gupta in\nrespect of land measuring 6.5545 Hectares, situated at Village Jaganpur,\nAgra made between the assessee and the company, namely “M/s Jansewa\nSehkari Awas Samiti Limited” dt.02.05.2011, in which, Sh. Ghanshyam\nGupta was one of the director, for a total consideration of\nRs.30,10,00,000.\n8.\nOn the basis of the above agreement and certain documents were found\nfrom the residence of Sh.Ghanshyam Gupta, reproduced at pages-5-12 of\nthe assessment order, it has been observed by the AO that the assessee\nhas paid cash payment of Rs.12,55,00,000 over and above the registered\nvalue and, accordingly, the AO proceeded to make the addition of the\nabove said amount.\n9.\nAggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before\nthe Ld CIT(A) against the above addition, after considering the\nsubmissions of the assessee, the same was dismissed vide order dated\n20.08.2024. Now, the assessee is in appeal against the impugned order.\n10.\nAt the time of hearing, Ld AR of the assessee submitted his arguments,\nalso filed his written submissions, the relevant issues raised before us\nalone is reproduced below for the sake of brevity:\n\"6.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before the Worthy CIT (A) against the\nabove addition, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated\n20.08.2024. Now we are in appeal against the above order and\nout submissions are as under :-\nThe sequence of events for the purposes of explaining the facts of the\ncase are as under :-\na)\nThere was search and seizure operations on one Sh. Ghanshyam\nGupta, who is not related to assessee and independent 'third\nparty' and during the course of search, from the independent\npremises of Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta, one agreement for purchase of\n6.5545 hectares of land was found between the company owned by\nSh. Ghanshyam Gupta, namely ‘M/s Jansewa Sehkari Awas Samiti\nLimited' and group of farmers, dated 31.07.2010. The said\nagreement was for a consideration of Rs.85,00,000 per bigha.\nCopy of the agreement is being enclosed at Paper Book pages 245\nto 261 and as per the said agreement, the company had paid a sum\nof Rs.20,00,000/- in cash as per pages 251-254 of the ‘Paper\nBook'. On the said agreement, there are signatures of Sh.\nGhanshyam Gupta and thumb impressions of the farmers and,\nfrom that, it is quite apparent that the farmers are mainly\nagriculturists and uneducated.\nb)\nSh. Ghanshyam Gupta, on the basis of said agreement, dated\n31.07.2010 as entered with the farmers wanted to make 'extra\nmoney' approached the assessee, contending that, he can\nfacilitate the purchase of land from group of farmers and,\naccordingly, got an agreement, dated 02.05.2011 executed\nbetween the assessee and the same group of farmers, for the same\nland, measuring 6.5545 hectares, as a mediator, for a\nconsideration of Rs.30.10 crores and copy of that agreement, is\nbeing enclosed herewith in the paper book at pages 75-76. The\nsaid agreement, duly signed was found from the residential\npremises of Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta, during the course of search\nfrom his premises and the assessee made payment of Rs.1 crore as\nadvance and out of which Rs.45 lacs was paid through banking\nchannel and Rs.55 lacs was paid in cash, which have been duly\nrecorded in the books of accounts of the assessee.\nc)\nThe said agreement was executed on 02.05.2011 and the time of\n'one year' was mentioned therein for finalization of ‘registration\ndeed' in favour of assessee concerned. However, the assessee got\nto know that Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta had been over charging the\namount, which was actually to be paid to farmers and also that he\nhad not informed the assessee, about the next date of payment for\nthe purpose of execution said agreement and, therefore, the\nassessee directly approached the farmers and came to know that\nthere is substantial difference on account of purchase\nconsideration, as agreed, upon & settled as per agreement and the\nactual amount and, thus, the said agreement, dated 02.05.2011\nwas cancelled on 20.05.2011, copy of which is enclosed herewith\nin the paper book at pages 77-78. This agreement could not be\nfound from the residential premises of Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta,\nsince that agreement related to assessee and, therefore, was kept\nby the assessee only.\nd)\nThat from the residence of Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta, a cancelled\nagreement was also found, dated 03.06.2011, copy placed at paper\nbook, which was in consequence to the agreement, dated

31. July\n2010, which was entered into originally for a consideration of @\nRs.55 lacs per bigha between Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta and farmers.\ne)\nThus, since the assessee had now acquainted himself with the\ngroup of farmers and purchased 4.61 hectares of land, directly\nfrom the farmers for a total consideration of Rs.17 crores, and the\nbifurcation of the same has been reproduced by the Assessing\nOfficer, at page 13 of the assessment order. It is worthwhile to\nmention here that on the major portion of the land, ‘High-Tension\nWires' of the ‘Electricity Department' were existing and nothing\ncould be built below the said ‘High Tension Wires' and due to the\nsaid disadvantage, the said wires were got shifted by the assessee\nconcerned, by making a huge payment of Rs.87,86,214/- to the\nElectricity department as per evidence enclosed in the paper book\nat pages 225-228, and the same was also furnished to the CIT(A).\nThus, since this task of shifting of ‘High Tension Wires' was very\ntedious and lot of time and energy was involved and, therefore,\nafter considering the amount of Rs.87,86,214/-, so paid for shifting\nof 'High Tension Wires', the total cost for the land purchased by\nthe assessee works out to Rs.17,87,86,214 i.e.(17 crores +\n87,86,214/-).The copies of the challans and relevant evidences\nwere furnished before the CIT(A) and enclosed in the Paper Book\nat pages 227-228.\n7.\nThe core issue on account of above fact is that, the Assessing\nOfficer had adopted the consideration of 6.5545 hectares of land,\nfor which, an agreement was entered into by the company with the\ngroup of farmers for a total consideration of Rs.30.10 crores with\nGhanshyam Gupta as a mediator. The Assessing Officer applied\nthe same consideration of 30.10 crores even in respect of land\npurchased directly by the assessee concerned measuring, 4.61\nhectares for a consideration of Rs.17 crores, directly from the\nsame farmers.\n8.\nThe Assessing Officer has grossly erred in assuming that\nconsideration of Rs.30.10 crores, which was for 6.5545 hectares,\ninstead of 4.61 hectares and also without taking into consideration\nthe fact that the assessee had dealt with groups of farmers directly\nand, thus, big chunk of margin, which the middleman Sh.\nGhanshyam Gupta was trying to siphon off was saved by the\nassessee company. Further, the assessee filed affidavits of the\nfarmers, duly attested, and all of them confirmed the consideration\nof Rs.17 crores for 4.61 hectares of land_and copies of such\naffidavits duly attested are enclosed. Reliance is being placed on\nthe judgement of Apex Court in the case of 'Mehta Parikh\" case\nreported in 30. ITR 181 and of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in\nthe case of Glassline Equipment, reported in 253 ITR 454, in\nwhich, it has been held that contents of the affidavit cannot be\ndisbelieved.\n9.\nFurther to that, it has not been appreciated by the lower\nauthorities that lot of efforts were made, besides good amount of\ntime was devoted by the assessee in getting 'High Tension Wires'\nshifted, for which, the evidence has been placed in the paper book\nat page 225-228 and which, the authorities below, have failed to\nappreciate. Further the value of land as on the date of purchase\nhave to be considered on the basis of the fact that “High Tension\nWires' were occupying the substantial portion of the land and the\nsaid land thus, could not have fetched the higher value of land\nand, which fact has not been appreciated by the authorities below.\nThe assessee for the purposes of the same have even furnished the\n'valuation' report of the registered valuer and the copies of the\nchallans of the payment of Rs.87,86,214 made to the electricity\nDepartment, for removing of the wires and the same are again\nenclosed in the paperbook at pages 228.\n10.\nTherefore, if we take into consideration the first agreement dated\n31st July, 2010, between the company, owned by Sh. Ghanshyam\nGupta, namely 'Jansewa Sehkari Awas Samiti Limited' with the\nfarmers vide agreement, placed at paper book at pages 245-261,\nthen the rate, at which, we had purchased the land of 4.61\nhectares directly from the farmers for a consideration of Rs.17\ncrores is fully justified in view of the following working:-\nArea of Land\nAmount of\nconsideration\ni)). Consideration agreed for 1. Bigha of land\nbetween Ghanshyam Gupta and farmers vide\nagreement, dated\n85,00,000\nii) Rate of 1 hectare 85,00,000*4 (1 Hectare=4\nbighas)\n3,40,00,000\niii) Rate of 4.61 hectares of land at the same rates\nreflected in the agreement, dated 31.07.2010\n15,67,40,000\nAmount of consideration for 4.61 hectares of land 17,00,00,000\nbetween assessee and farmers\nThus, no case of suppression of the purchase consideration can\never be made out against the assessee and there cannot be any\ncomparison of the agreement, dated 02.05.2011, executed between\nthe assessee and group of same farmers, at the behest of Sh.\nGhanshyam Gupta, acting as a middleman, who wanted to encash\n'huge margin' of the amount, by getting the deal, executed at much\nhigher price and which, eventually assessee got to know of the\nsame. Both the cancelled agreements, i.e. dated 03.06.2011\nentered, between the company owned by Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta\nand farmers was found from the residence of Sh. Ghanshyam\nGupta, during search and cancelled agreement, dated 20.05.2011,\nwhich was lying at the assessee's premises has also been placed in\nthe 'paper book' and which proves that the consideration paid by\nthe assessee concerned was much higher than the original\nagreement @ Rs.85 lacs per bigha is fully justified. The evidence\nin the shape of affidavit from farmers and Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta\nand the statement of Sh.Ghanshyam Gupta recorded post search\nduly substantiate the contention of the assessee.\n12.\nEven, if we add the cost of shifting of high tension wire, the\npurchase cost of the land would work out to much higher and\nworks out to Rs.17,87,86, 214/- as mentioned above. Thus, in\nnutshell, there is no basis for adoption of consideration of 6.5545\nhectares of land between the assessee and farmers, dated\n02.05.2011, which was facilitated by Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta due to\nthe reasons as mentioned above.\nOTHER FACTS RELATED TO CONSIDERATION FOR THE\nPURCHASE OF LAND\n13.\nDuring post search proceedings, Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta was\nsummoned by the Investigation Wing and his statement was\nrecorded viz-z-viz the consideration in respect of land purchased\nby the assessee directly from the farmers and he categorically\nstated that the agreement, dated 02.05.2011, which he facilitated\nbetween the assessee company and farmers was cancelled vide\nagreement, dated 20.05.2011, since the assessee directly\napproached the farmers and got the deal executed. The relevant\nquestions answers are being reproduced regarding the statement of\nSh. Ghanshyam Gupta, as under:\nप्रश्न 18- क्या आपमें पुष्पांजलि कंस्ट्रक्शन प्रा. लि. को जानते है तथा इत्तनें आपके या। । आपके किसी\nकन्सर्न से कोई समझौता हुआ है? चव Annexure A-7, का पेज नं. 01 से 72 जो आपके घर से\nसर्च के दौरान भीज हुआ था, को दिखा रहा हूँ। कृपया इसे देख कर बताएं कि इसमें लगे हुए बैनामें\nआपके भर से क्यों निले तथा कम्पनी Loadstar Intratac Pvt. Ltd. से आप का क्या संबंध\nहै तथा इसके द्वारा किए गए Source of Investment भी बताए?\nउत्तर- जो भूमि पातीराम आदि से पुष्पांजलि कंस्ट्रक्शन ने खरीदी है उस जमीन का पूर्व में एग्रीमेंट हमारे\nपास था। चूंकि वह भूमि विवादित भी और विवाद नहीं सुलझा पाए। इसलिए बाद में यह भूमि में\nपुष्पांजलि कंस्ट्रक्शन प्रा. लि. ने खरीदती था Annexure A-7, कापेजनं. 01 से 22 तक जो वैमना\nमें लगे हैं वह सब पातीराम तथा अन्ना किसानों से ग्राम विवाद तुतज्ञगयात महमने कुछ जमीन\nLoadstar Infratac Pvt. Ltd. के नाम से खरीदी थी। इससे संबंधित Source of\nInvestment के बारे में में बाद में बता दूंगा।\nCopy of said complete statement of Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta\nrecorded during post search is placed in the paper book at pages\n134-138.\n14.\nIt is worthwhile mention here that though, originally agreement at\nthe behest of Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta was entered into on\n02.05.2011 by the assessee and farmers but the land was finally\npurchased by the assessee, directly from the farmers majority in\nMarch 2012 as above and, thus, there was a gap of about one year\nand due to which, though, there may have been certain increase in\nthe price of land, but still the assessee purchased the land at a very\nfavourable rates and it is being mentioned here only to\ndemonstrate that no ‘on money', whatsoever, was paid in view of\nthe above said facts and circumstances.\n15.\nEven, the affidavit of Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta was furnished during\nthe course of appellant proceedings confirming the fact that the\noriginal agreement between the assessee and farmers was\ncancelled and he had returned back Rs.55 lacs as cash to the\nassessee concerned and which, is further, proved from the fact that\nSh. Ghanshyam Gupta was seriously involved as a mediator for the\nwhole deal under consideration. Copy of the affidavit is enclosed in\nthe Paper Book at page 80.\nISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 153C\n16.\nThough, from the above, we find that there can be no basis of\nissuance of notice_u/s_153C as demonstrated above, we had\npurchased only 4.61 hectares of land against the earlier\nagreement for 6.5545 hectares and in comparison with the\nagreement, dated 02.05.2011 entered into at the behest of Sh.\nGhanshyam Gupta and farmers is wholly misconceived, since that\nwas at the behest of Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta acting as facilitator and\nfurther, we had purchased only 4.61 hectares of land for a\nconsideration of Rs.17 crores and, thus, as argued above, our\nconsideration is very much in order and no adverse view can be\ndrawn.\n17.\nHowever, the Assessing Officer issued noticed u/s_153C_on the\nbasis of satisfaction drawn by him as per evidence placed at pages\n202 to 203 of Paper Book and the said satisfaction note u/s 153C is\nnot in order due to the following facts:-\n(at the time of hearing, Ld AR made submissions only on the\nissue of satisfaction and not pressed the DIN, therefore, only\nrelated issues are being reproduced for the brevity.)\ni).\niv).\nThe 2nd issue mentioned in the satisfaction note, is about the\nagreement for purchase of land measuring 6.5545 hectares\nfor Rs.30.10, in which, 55 lacs had been paid in cash and\nRs.12 crores yet to be paid.\nv).\nRegarding these two things, it has been mentioned in the last\nparagraph of satisfaction note that since these are\nincriminating documents/material found and seized during\nsearch is to be verified/examined from the regular books of\naccounts of the assessee concerned, during assessment\nproceedings.\nvi).\nThis finding clearly stipulates that notice u/s 153C had been\nissued only for verification, whereas section 153 clearly lays\ndown as under:-\n153-C.Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section\n147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153,\nwhere the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or\n(b)\nany books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein,\nrelates to,\na person other than the person referred to in section 153A,\nthen, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or\nrequisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer\nhaving jurisdiction over such other person and that\nAssessing Officer shall proceed against each such other\nperson and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of\nthe other person in accordance with the provisions of section\n153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of\naccount or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have\na bearing on the determination of the total income of such\nother person for six assessment years immediately preceding\nthe assessment year relevant to the previous year in which\nsearch is conducted or requisition is made and for the\nrelevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section\n(1) of section 153A :\"\nFrom the bare reading of the above section, it is very much clear\nthat before assuming the jurisdiction u/s 153C, the AO has to be\nsatisfied that the document seized from the searched documents,\nhave a bearing on the determination of total income of such\nperson, other than the searched person, which condition has not\nbeen satisfied in the present case by the Assessing Officer\nconcerned, since nothing has been mentioned therein.\nvii).\nYour goodself's kind attention is invited towards the\nsatisfaction note recorded by the Ld. AO in the case of the\nassessee enclosed in the PB at pages 202-203. From a\nperusal of the same, it is clear that the said so-called\nsatisfaction note, neither bears any DIN nor the same has\nbeen dated, by the Ld. AO, implying that the said satisfaction\nnote is invalid.\nFurther, in the last paragraph of the satisfaction note, the\nAssessing Officer mentioned as under:-\n\"The all above incriminating documents/material found and\nseized during the search action u/s 132 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 need to be verified/examined form the regular\nbooks of account of M/s. Pushpanjali Constructions Pvt. Ltd.\nduring the assessment proceedings. Therefore, in view of the\nprovisions of section 153C(1) read with section 153A of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, I am satisfied that proceedings u/s\n153C read with section 153A is required to be initiated in\nthe case of M/s. Pushpanjali Constructions Pvt. Ltd..\nAccordingly, notices u/s 153C read with section 153A of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 are being issued.\"\nviii). From the above, thus, it is quite evident that how and in\nwhat manner, the AO had drawn the conclusion, that there is\nescapement of income on the basis of seized documents and\nit is also not mentioned that what is the undisclosed income,\nwhich is proposed to have not have been declared and, thus,\nvery basis of initiation of the proceeding u/s 153C is devoid\nof any valid reasoning and, thus, the assessment as farmed\non the basis of non-existing satisfaction note, deserves to be\nquashed since as per section 153C, such documents should\nhave bearing on the determination of total income of six\n assessment years and no such finding has been recorded\ntherein.\n(ix)\nYour goodself's attention is invited to section 153C, which is\nequivalent to 148, where the AO assumes the jurisdiction\nover the completed assessment of assessee and before issue\nof notices, the AO, is mainly required to satisfy that how\nthere is escapement and what is quantification of income is\nthere on the basis of documents seized during the course of\nproceeding from third party and since nothing has been\nmentioned therein, the proceedings as initiated u/s 153C are\nbad.\nx).\nFurther, it is also pointed out herewith the said satisfaction\nnote does not specify the assessment year, for which, the\ninformation has been provided and with regard to the same,\nit is submitted that a valid satisfaction note should clearly\nspecify the assessment year and should also quantify the\n‘issue wise' amount in respect of which, such satisfaction is\nproposed. However, from a perusal of the satisfaction note,\nit is clear that neither there is any mention of the assessment\nyear, to which, the so called information relates and nor the\namount of alleged escapement of income has been mentioned\nthere and only things have been mentioned in a very casual\nmanner.\nxi).\nFirstly, in Sl. 1 of the satisfaction note, the Ld. AO has\nmerely stated the fact that the assessee has purchased land\nfrom 'Sh. Pati Ram' for a total consideration of Rs.1.7\ncrores and that the same is evident from the sale deed. With\nregard to the same, it is submitted that it is not debated that\nthe assessee has purchased the same, and payment in respect\nof the same has also been made via banking channels and\nthe same has also been disclosed in the books of accounts of\nthe assessee. Therefore, there is nothing incriminating in the\nsaid evidence and the same nowhere suggests any\nescapement of income.\nxii).\nThen in SL. 2 again, the Ld. AO has stated non-debatable\nfact regarding agreement entered between the assessee and\n\"M/s Jansewa Sehkari Awas Samiti Limited” and, for which,\nwe have also admitted that the same was entered by the\nassessee and even payment of Rs.1 crore has been paid\nagainst such an agreement. However, the said agreement\nwas cancelled vide deed dated 20.05.2011, therefore, again\nthere is nothing in the said document, which would suggest\nescapement of income or any incriminating material,\nwhatsoever.\nxiii).\nThen in Sl. 3 again, the Ld. AO has pointed out some\ndocument, which actually neither exists nor the same has\never been confronted to the assessee, either during the\nsearch proceedings or during the assessment proceedings.\nYour goodself's kind attention is also invited towards the\nQuestion 25 of the statement of Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta,\nwherein Annexure A-3 is has been confronted to him and it is\nsubmitted that said Annexure A-3 altogether different and\nfrom a perusal of the said statement, it is clear that the\ndocument A-3 confronted to Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta and A-3\nalleged as above, by the Ld. AO are different. Moreover, no\ncognizance of the same has ever been taken in the\nassessment order, thus, the same does not represent any\nincriminating documents.\nxiv).\nFrom a perusal of the above, it is clear that the so called\nsatisfaction note does not represent any shred of information\nthat the documents represent unexplained income of the\nassessee, therefore, in such a case, the satisfaction note is\nfaulty and thus, the entire proceedings u/s 153C is invalid\nand void-ab-initio. Reliance is being placed on the following\njudgments:-\na).\nHIGH COURT OF DELHI Commissioner of Income-tax-7 v.\nRRJ Securities Ltd. 62 taxmann.com 391, Delhi High\nCourt,(refer Para 35-39)\nb).\nIn Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 367 ITR\n112/52 taxmann.com 220/[2015] 231 Taxman

58. (Delhi), this\nCourt had explained that on a plain reading of Section 153C of the\nAct, a notice under that section could be issued only after two\npreceding conditions had been met. First of all, the AO of the\nsearched person would have to arrive at a satisfaction that\ndocument or asset seized does not belong to the person searched\nbut to some other person and secondly, the seized documents/assets\nare handed over to the AO having jurisdiction over that person,\nthat is, the person other than the one searched and to whom the\nseized documents/assets are said to belong. (refer para 6–11)\nc).\nMaheshwari Coal Benefication& Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v.\nDy.\nCommissioner\nof Income-tax [Central] Circle-\n1(1) 171 taxmann.com 842 (Nagpur - Trib.)-\n18.\nAt the very outset and without prejudice to our objections that the\nproceedings u/s 153C have wrongly been initiated, we beg to\nsubmit that even no cognizance can be taken of the 'third party'\nevidence as in the present case, which has been heavily relied upon\nby the Assessing Officer concerned and the AO while framing the\nassessment had relied upon the following documents as disclosed\nin the assessment order:-\na).\nAgreement, dated 02.05.2011 for a sum of Rs.30.10 crores\nfor 6.5545 hectare of land.\nb).\nThe Assessing Officer has also relied upon the fact that in\nview of the above agreement, the purchase of land for Rs.17\ncrores for 4.61 hectare of land is the understatement in the\nregistration deed.\nc).\nHe has also relied upon certain loose/rough sheets not\nrelated to assessee at all and found from the premises of\nthird party Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta, where certain names and\ndiscussion about the payment is there and which contains no\nmention of the assessee.\n19.\nWe will deal with documents found from‘third party' as under:-\na).\nAs regards, the said agreement is concerned, the said agreement\nstood cancelled as per agreement, dated 20.05.2011, which has not\nbeen doubted by the AO and further to that, the assessee had\npurchased 4.61 hectares of land for Rs.17 crores and if we\ncompare the area of the land and the consideration by way of\nagreement, dated 03.07.2010 and the land actually purchased as\nper facts mentioned above, we had paid rather more consideration\nand, if we, consider the amount paid for shifting of high tension\nwire, the amount further is increased manifold and, thus, how\nthere is escapement of income, has neither been quantified and\nnor elaborated by the AO in the satisfaction note and, thus, the\njurisdiction as framed u/s 153C is devoid of any valid\nconsideration.\nb).\nAs regards, the reliance placed by the AO on certain rough/loose\nsheets from the premises occupied by independent person namely\nSh. Ghanshyam Gupta, such loose slips have neither been written\nby the assessee nor found from the premises of assessee and further\nto that, there is no mention in the satisfaction note about such so\ncalled incriminating material, which can be said to be belonging to\nassessee. Thus, when basic condition for assuming the jurisdiction\nof the 'incriminating document' belonging to assessee have not\nbeen made, the same cannot be relied upon by the AO to draw\nadverse conclusion against the assessee and, for which, the\nfollowing submissions may, please, be considered:-\ni)\nAt the outset, it is submitted that the entire additions have\nbeen made on the basis of the so called 'loose slips' found at\nthe residence of Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta, third party and\nwhich are reproduced on page 5-12 of the assessment order\nby AO.\nii).\nIt is submitted that the said slips/rough notings has been\nseized from third party and it does not belong to the\nassessee, as it neither contains the name of the assessee, any\ndate and nor the same is in the hand writing of the assessee\nor any Authorized representative of the assessee.\niii)\nTherefore, as per the provision of section 132(4A), it is\ndeemed that any such document found during the course of\nsearch from the possession or control of the person searched\nshall belong to such person only.\niv)\nIt is further submitted that such rough documents is not\nsupported by any corroborative material, evidence on record\nand it is also a fact on record that even the statement of Sh.\nGhanshyam Gupta was recorded during the course of post\nsearch and no statement was recorded against such rough\ndocuments and the same is evidenced from the copy of\nstatements of Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta enclosed in the paper\nbook at pages 134-138.\nv)\nIn question No. 18 of the statement of Mr. Ghanshyam Gupta\nhe has been asked regarding agreement with the assessee\nand against which, he stated that due to various disputes\nbetween the farmers, the said agreement was cancelled and\nthe assessee has purchased the land directly from the\nfarmers (sellers) refer page 27 of the Appeal order and page\n136 of PB.\nvi)\nIt is submitted that Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta was also involved\nwith the same farmers (sellers) for other part of the land as\nwell and the same is evident from the statement of Sh.\nGhanshyam Gupta recorded post search and also enclosed\nin the PB at page 134-138. It has been stated by him that\nsome part of land was purchased by some other company\nnamely M/s Loadstar Infratac Pvt. Ltd. at the behest of Sh.\nGhanshyam Gupta which shows that Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta\nwas involved with the farmers in respect of the other land\ndeal as well.\nvii)\nTherefore, no addition can be made on the basis of such\nrough/loose documents found from the third party as per the\npresumptions u/s 132(4) and reliance is being placed on the\nfollowing case laws:-\na).\nCIT, Delhi (Central)-II v. D.K. Gupta [2008] 174\nTAXMANN 476 (Delhi)-“Section 132 of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 - Search and seizure - Block period 1-4-1995 to 18-3-\n2002 - Assessee was a director in a company which was in\nbusiness of property development and real estate - During a\nsearch conducted at business premises of said company, two\ndiaries were seized from assessee - Notings in those diaries\nincluded appointments, reminders, noting/jottings, etc. - On\nbeing questioned, assessee explained that notings in said\ndiaries were in connection with general property related\ndiscussions and had nothing to do with actual transactions\nAssessing Officer, however, raised a presumption against\nhim in view of provisions of section 132(4A) and made\naddition on account of entries recorded in said two diaries\nOn appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition - On\nrevenue's appeal, Tribunal held that provisions contained in\nsection 132(4A) did not authorize Assessing Officer to raise\nsuch a presumption, particularly when assessee had offered\nexplanation along with documents and evidences and had\nalso furnished an affidavit to that effect - Tribunal further\nreturned a finding of fact that there was no corroborative or\ndirect evidence to presume that notings/jottings recorded in\nsaid two diaries had materialized into transactions giving\nrise to income which had not been disclosed in regular\nbooks of account - Tribunal, therefore, upheld order of\nCommissioner (Appeals) Whether findings of facts\nrecorded by Tribunal could be interfered with - Held, no”\nb).\nAshwani Kumar v. ITO

39. ITD 183 (Delhi)-“Section 69A,\nread with section 132(4A), of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nUnexplained moneys - Assessment year 1985-86 - Assessee\nwas engaged in business of purchase and sale of cement\nDuring relevant accounting period a search was conducted\nat assessee's business premises and department found an\namount of Rs.1,86,330 in cash - Assessee stated that it\nbelonged to D and in which he was a partner and aforesaid\namount was cash-in-hand - Whether in view of facts that\nassessee's total sale was of Rs.1,10,23,744 it could be said\nthat amount found in search was cash-in-hand and, thus,\nsame was not an unexplained money includible in assessee's\nincome - Held, yes\nSection 69, read with section 132(4A), of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 - Unexplained investment - Assessment year 1985-86\nWhether in view of facts mentioned under above head\n"Unexplained money", document which was found at time of\nsearch and which did not indicate whether figures referred\nto quantities of money or to quantities of goods, was a dumb\ndocument and, therefore, no addition could be made on basis\nof such document - Held, yes - Whether an addition could be\nmade on basis of sample analysis report which showed that\nassessee sold adulterated cement Held, no Whether\namount, which was mentioned in a slip found at residence\npremises of assessee's father during search, could be treated\nas assessee's income even though assessee denied it - Held,\nпо\nSection 132(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and\nseizure Whether presumption arising under section\n132(4A) is not restricted to proceedings under section\n132(5) and could be raised in proceedings for regular\nassessment - Held, yes”\nc).\nS.P. Goyal v. Dy. CIT [2002]

82. ITD

85. (Mum.)-“Section 68\nof the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year\n1993-94 - Addition of Rs.60 lakhs had been made by\nAssessing Officer on account of consignment sales on basis\nof entries found in loose sheets of diary belonging to\nassessee seized during course of search Whether loose\nsheets of paper torn out of diary for 1992 could be\nconsidered as books for purpose of section 68 - Held, no\nWhether as it was a mere entry on loose sheet of paper and\nassessee claimed that it was only a planning, not supported\nby actual cash, then there had to be circumstantial evidence\nto support that entry really represented cash of Rs.60 lakhs\nHeld, yes Whether where there was no such evidence\nfound in form of extra cash, jewellery or investment outside\nbook, explanation offered by assessee could not be rejected -\nHeld, yes Whether addition made was on mere suspicion\nwithout any corroborative evidence and had to be deleted\nHeld, yes\"\nd).\nPioneer Publicity Corpn. Dy. CIT [2000]

67. TT) (Delhi)\n471-Where a diary was admittedly recovered and seized\nfrom the officer premises of the assessee-firm during the\ncourse of search, the same would have to be presumed to be\nbelonging to the assessee-firm as per provisions of section\n132(4A), and where there was nothing to prove that the\ndiary belonged to a third person and not to the assessee-firm\nadditions could be made on basis of entire in such diary.\nWhere household articles like airconditioners, colour TVs,\netc. were found during search and purchase of these items\nhad not been accounted for nor there were separate\nwithdrawals shown for their purchase, in the absence of any\nevidence about the period of their purchase, the same would\nbe deemed to have been acquired as on the date of search\nout of undisclosed income under the provisions of section\n69A.\ne).\nK. Gupta v. CIT [1999]

63. TTJ (Delhi) 532-“The basis of\naddition in this case is a seized paper - p. 13, Annexure AI,\nrelating to purchase/sale of property. The document bears\nthe caption \"Estimates\". There seems some truth in the\nexplanation of the assessee where it is alleged that the\nentries relate to some futuristic planning. Since the assessee\nis carrying on the business of estate agent, in the process of\nthis business, he is required to discuss various plans,\nprojects and proposals with various parties like brokers,\nbuilders, etc. These discussions generally take place before a\nproject for purchase of development, plans are discussed as\nthe assessee acts as an agent on behalf of the buyer or seller.\nThe basis of addition by the Revenue is entirely rests on the\npresumption of recovery of p. 13, Annexure A-1, and the\npresumption contained under s.132(4A) of the IT Act. In this\nconnection, we would like to mention here that presumption\narising out of sub-section (4A) of s.132 of the Act is\navailable to the Revenue for the limited purpose of search\nand seizure and the proceedings under s.132(5) and\n132(11). Such presumptions are available for the limited\npurpose of estimating the undisclosed income and the\nestimated tax liability for the purpose of deciding whether\nthe seized assets should be seized or retained.\nThe\npresumption cannot have the effect of excluding or\noverriding the provisions of s.69 of the IT Act during the\ncourse of regular assessment proceedings. In such\ncircumstances, it cannot be presumed that seized document\nshows any transaction of sale and purchase entered into by\nthe assessee, which is not disclosed by him. In the case of\nHindustan Ferodo Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise\n(1997)

89. ELT

16. (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid\ndown that it is not the function of the Tribunal to enter the\narena of making suppositions that are tantamount to\nevidence that the party has failed to lead.”\nf).\nCIT v. S.M. Aggarwal [2007] 162 Taxmann3/293 ITR 43\n(Delhi)\ng).\nK. Malhan v. Dy. CIT [2005]

91. TTJ (Delhi) 938\nh).\nARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner\nof Income-tax, Central Circle-28, New Delhi, 81\ntaxmann.com 260 (Delhi)\ni).\nCIT v. Jai Pal Aggarwal [2012]

28. Taxmann.com\n269/[2013] 212 Taxmann (Delhi)\nj).\nSubhash Chander Gupta vs The ITO, ITAT Chandigarh,\nITA No. 765/CHD/2024- (Para 16)\nk).\nThe DCIT, Central Circle-2 Ludhiana vs Amarjit Singh,\nITAT Chandigarh, (refer Para\n17)\n(viii)\nThus, on the basis of above said facts, the loose document\nwhich have been reproduced at different pages of the\nassessment order have no link or connection with the\nassessee, because the heavy onus lies on the department that\nthe said document pertains to or belong to assessee\nconcerned. It is further, submitted on merits, that from the\nvarious documents found and it is clear that Sh. Ghanshyam\nGupta was, in fact, acting the mediator for arranging land of\nfarmers to different parties and, thus, under what\ncircumstances, such notings/abbreviation have been written\non this loose document, is none of the concern of the\nassessee and the AO has only gone by wild guess that since\nthe names of the farmers may be same, but since such\nfarmers having sold the land to the other parties apart from\nSh. Ghanshyam Gupta, acting as a mediator, the said\ndocument, cannot be said to be belonging to assessee at all.\n(ix)\nFurther, it is submitted that as per the settled law as stated\nabove document as found from the premises of third party,\nhas to be considered in the hands of the person from whom\nsuch documents are found, because he is sole judge about\nthe nature and source of such document and surprisingly, no\nadverse view has been drawn of such document in the hands\nof Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta, while framing his assessment u/s\n153A and more particularly, the said document did not form\nthe basis of drawing the satisfaction note against the\nassessee and, thus, the consideration of such document and\ndrawing adverse inference against the assessee of having\npaid 'on money' which was neither proved from documents\nnor from the factual facts and circumstances as elaborated\nabove, it is prayed that such finding of the authorities below\ndoes not stand to the test of scrutiny. The copy of the\nassessment order of Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta is enclosed in the\npaperbook at pages 231-244.\n20.\nFurther, it is also submitted that the assessee during the\nassessment proceedings vide reply dated 13.11.2019 has requested\nthe AO to confront or cross examine the persons from whom such\nrough document were obtained and the same is evident from the\ncopy of the reply enclosed in the PB at pages 154-159.\n21.\nHowever, no opportunity to cross examine or cross verify the said\nthird party evidence was ever provided to the assessee, which\nnullify the evidentiary value of the said rough documents. Reliance\nin this regard is placed on the following judgments wherein it has\nbeen held that the Ld. AO is not justified in making addition in the\nhands of the assessee on the basis of third party\nstatement/documents found from the premises of some third party:\na).\nCIT v. Odeon Builders (P) Ltd. as reported in 418 ITR 315\n(SC)\nb).\nThe DCIT vs. Shri Amarjit Singh in ITA No. ITA No.\n774/CHD/2023 (06.03.2025) (Para 17)\nc).\nPCIT (Central) vs. DSG Papers (P.) Ltd as reported in [2024]\n161 taxmann.com 586 (Punjab & Haryana) [09-11-2023]\nd).\nIncome-tax Officer, VII(2), Ludhiana vs. Dr. R.L. Narang\nas reported in [2008] 174 Taxman

96. (Chandigarh)\ne).\nACIT vs. Ms. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 87\ntaxmann.com 116 (Mumbai)\nf).\nACIT vs. Navaratna Estates & ANR as reported in 63. CCH\n0015 Vishakhapatnam-Trib (08.09.2021) (Para 24)\ng).\nACIT vs. Layer Exports (P) Ltd. as reported in 88\ntaxmann.com 620(Mumbai – Trib) (Para 33)\nh).\nShri Vinit Ranawat vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune) in ITA No.\nITANos.1105 and 1106/PN/2013\ni).\nAbhijavala Developers (P.) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer\n9(1)(1), Mumbai as reported in [2021] 124 taxmann.com 72\n(Mumbai - Trib.)\nj).\nPRARTHANA CONSTRUCTION (P.) LTD. vs. DCIT as\nreported in [2001] 118 TAXMAN 112 (AHD.) (MAG.)\n22.\nIt is submitted that before passing of assessment order, prior\napproval of the concerned Authority is required u/s 153D of the\nAct.\n23.\nWith regard to the same, your Honors kind attention is invited\ntowards the approval u/s 153D accorded by Addl. CIT of Income\nTax (Central) Range, Meerut, which is marked to the Dy. CIT\n(Central Circle), Ghaziabad and enclosed in the PB at page 204\nand in the said approval the concerned Addl. CIT of Income Tax\nhas\nreferred to the application number F. No.\nDCIT/CC/GZB/Rajeshwar Group/Approval/2019-20/2300 dated\n12.12.2019.\n24.\nThis approval depicts that the Dy. CIT (Central Circle), Ghaziabad\nhas requested for approval from Addl. CIT of Income Tax (Central)\nRange, Meerut via letter No. F. No. DCIT/CC/GZB/Rajeshwar\nGroup/Approval/ 2019-20/2300 dated 12.12.2019 for passing of\nthe assessment orders in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2012-\n13 to 2018-19 containing 7 volumes.\n27.\nIt is submitted that the approval of the same applications have been\ngiven by Addl. CIT of Income Tax (Central) Range, Meerut on the\nsame date i.e. 12.12.2019, thereby implying that the concerned\nAuthority has perused the entire set of records for 6 assessment\nyears contained in 7 volumes on the same day the same was\nforwarded to him which is impossible and it depicts merely a\nmechanical approval by the said authority without going through\nthe facts of the case.\n25.\nThe Directorate of Income Tax has given a detailed procedure\nbefore giving of the approval u/s 153D and the same is given in\nClause 9 of Manual of Office Procedure, Volume II (Technical)\nFebruary 2003 issued by Directorate of Income Tax on behalf of\nCentral Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue,\nGovernment of India, page 44 read as under:\n\"9. Approval for assessment: An assessment order under\nChapter XIV-B can be passed only with the previous\napproval of the range JCIT/ADDL.CIT. (For the period from\n30-6-1995 to 31-12-1996 the approving authority was the\nCIT.) The Assessing Officer should submit the draft\nassessment order for such approval well in time. The\nsubmission of the draft order must be docketed in the order-\nsheet and a copy of the draft order and covering letter filed\nin the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Due\nopportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee\nby the supervisory officer giving approval to the proposed\nblock assessment, at least one month before the time barring\ndate. Finally once such approval is granted, it must be in\nwriting and filed in the relevant folder indicated above after\nmaking a due entry in the order-sheet. The assessment order\ncan be passed only after the receipt of such approval. The\nfact that such approval has been obtained should also be\nmention in the body of the assessment order itself.”\n26.\nFrom a perusal of the above it is clear that the Add. CIT in the\ncase of the assessee have not followed such procedure and the\napproval has been granted by the concerned authority for all the\n assessment years altogether mechanically and making the said\napproval void-ab-initio and thus, the assessment order passed in\nthe case of the assessee stands invalidated. Reliance in this regard\nis placed on the following judgments:-\ni).\nPCIT Vs Anuj Bansal, Supreme Court of India, 165\ntaxmann.com

3. (SC)- Section 153D, read with section 153A, of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Prior approval\nnecessary for assessment in cases of search or requisition\n(Illustrations) - Assessment year 2017-18 - Pursuant to a search\nconducted at assessee's premises Assessing Officer made\nsignificant additions to assessee's income for cash deposits and\ncash introduced through an entry operator - Assessing Officer\nincorrectly recorded returned income, leading to an erroneous\ntotal assessed income - ACIT approved assessment under Section\n153D without reviewing assessment records or search material,\nmissing key discrepancies\nOn appeal, Tribunal set aside\nassessment order on ground that ACIT's approval was based only\non draft assessment order and failed to review assessment records\nand search material - High Court upheld Tribunal's finding -\nAgainst said order revenue filed instant SLP - Whether having\nregard to peculiar facts of instant case, matter needed no\ninterference and thus, SLP was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para\n2] [In favour of assessee]\nii).\nPrincipal Commissioner of Income-tax v. MDLR Hotels (P.) Ltd.,\nDelhi High Court- 166 taxmann.com 327 (Delhi) -Section 153D,\nread with section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and\nseizure Prior approval for assessment Tribunal quashed\nassessment order by holding that approval granted under\nsection 153D was not valid as Competent Authority accorded\napproval to as many as 246 proposed assessments by way of single\nletter of approval without application of mind and approval so\ngranted did not even refer to any seized material/assessment\nrecords or any other documents which could suggest that Authority\nhad duly applied his mind before granting approvals - Whether in\nview of decision in Pr. CIT v. Pioneer Town Planners (P.)\nLtd. [2024] 160 taxmann.com 652/465 ITR 356 (Delhi), no\nquestion of law arose from Tribunal's order - Held, yes [Para 5]\n[In favour of assessee]\niii).\nAmbika Alloys v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax,\nCentral- ITAT Delhi, 172 taxmann.com 112 (Delhi - Trib.)-\nSection 263, read with section 153D, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nRevision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue (Approval\nunder section 153D) - Assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15\nWhether where approval under section 153D is quite mechanical,\npassed without application of mind and lacks sufficient thoughtful\nprocess, resultantly assessment order followed by such approval\nlacks legitimacy and is 'non-est' and 'null and void' and liable to\nbe quashed and revision under section 263 of said order is nullity\nand void ab initio - Held, yes [Para 23] [In favour of assessee]\niv).\nMaheshwari Coal Benefication& Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. Dy.\nCommissioner of Income-tax [Central] Circle-1(1) ITAT\nNAGPUR BENCH, 171 taxmann.com 842- IV. Section 153C,\nread with section 153D, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and\nseizure - Assessment in Case Of (Approval under section 153D)\n Assessment years 2009-10 to 2013-14 - During course of search,\ndocuments pertaining to assessee were seized from searched\nperson Thereafter, notice under section 153C was issued to\nassessee and assessment was completed under section 153C read\nwith section 143(3) for relevant assessment years- Assessing\nOfficer also sought approval from Addl. Commissioner under\nsection 153D for making assessment under section 153C - It was\nnoted that Addl. Commissioner did not mention anything in\napproval order passed under section 153D even though for each\nyear separately, towards his process of deriving satisfaction so as\nto exhibit his due application of mind - Even approval did not refer\nto any seized material/assessment records/satisfaction note or any\nother documents - Whether said approval granting proceeding was\na quasi judicial proceeding requiring application of mind - Held,\nyes Whether since approval under section 153D was granted on\nsame day on 31-3-2022 on basis of letter dated 31-3-2022 by\nAssessing Officer for seeking approval, proper procedure had not\nbeen followed by Assessing Officer as well as Joint Commissioner -\nHeld, yes Whether thus, approval given under section 153D was\ninvalid and consequently impugned order passed under section\n153C read with section 143(3)/144 was to be quashed - Held,\nyes[Paras 61, 62 and 68] [In favour of assessee].\nv).\nFurther reliance is being placed on the following judgments:-\na)\nACIT vs. Serajuddin and Co. [2024] 163 taxmann.com\n118(SC)[28-11-2023]\nb)\nACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 146\n(Orissa)[15-03-2023]\nc).\nPrincipal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Shiv Kumar\nNayyar [2024] 163 taxmann.com

9. (Delhi)[15-05-2024]\nd).\n2025 (3) TMI 994 - ITAT DELHI KEHAR SINGH VERSUS\nDCIT, CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI.\ne).\n2025 (1) TMI 970 - ITAT DELHI INDER CHAND BAJAJ AE\n-17 VERSUSDCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-32 DELHI\nf).\n2025 (4) TMI 1132 - ITAT DELHI APPLE COMMODITIES\nLIMITEDVERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, NOIDA\ng).\n2024 (12) TMI 1107 - ITAT DELHI M/S AIRWILL INFRA\nLTD. VERSUSDY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,\nCENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA.\nh)\n2025 (1) TMI 175 - ITAT DELHI KAVITA JAIN, BIJENDER\nKUMAR JAIN,SANDEEP JAIN, SMT. RAKHI JAIN,\nNARENDER KUMAR JAIN, SURINDERKUMAR JAIN,\nJAGDISH PRASHAD JAIN VERSUS DCIT CENTRAL\nCIRCLEKARNAL\ni).\n2025 (2) TMI 915 ITAT DELHI GULZAR AHMED\nVERSUS DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN\nj).\n2024 (12) TMI 1553 - ITAT MUMBAI NILESH SHAMJI\nBHARANIVERSUS DCIT, CC-4 (1), MUMBAI\nk).\nSP SINGLA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. CIT, ITA\nNo.140 to145/Chd/2024, AY 2013-14 to 2018-19\nl)\nGanesh Builders vs. DCIT, ITA No. 422/CHD/2022 AY\n2012-13 &452/CHD/2022 AY 2012-13 (Relevant discussion\nin this case have been given starting from para 16, page 37\nand by relying upon various judgments final finding has\nbeen given in para 16.