ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 8 , NEW DELHI vs. NAGENDER, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI

BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.As No.6390, 6391 6392 and 6393/DEL/2018 Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13

Assistant Commissioner of Income v. Shri Nagender, Tax, Flat No.16, A-44/45, Central Circle-8, Jawahar Park, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: ADEPN5952B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by: Shri Neeraj Mangal, CA Department by: Shri C.P. Pathak, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 24 04 2023 Date of pronouncement: 27 04 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.:

The above captioned appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV, New Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 09.07.2018 arising from the assessment orders all dated 27.12.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 153A r.w. Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2009-10, 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2012-13.

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 2

No.6390/del/2018 concerning Assessment Year 2009-10.

ITA No.6390/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10)

“1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in quashing the assessment proceedings us 153A in light of Kabul Chawla Judgment. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,50,000/- made by the AO in account of unexplained property transaction. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,60,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits. 5. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that cash withdrawals are sufficient to justify cash deposits and there is no need to explain it. 6. The appellant craves for leave to add, amend any/all the ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

(a) Undisclosed receipts from sale of property of Rs.17,50,000/- in the light of the information received from Individual Transaction Statement (ITS) wherein the assessee is

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 3

shown to have sold property for Rs.17,50,000/- on 12.09.2008.

(b) Addition on account of cash deposits in the bank account with Punjab National Bank of Rs.13,60,000/-. This addition was also based on information from Individual Transaction Statement (ITS).

“Issue of undisclosed receipt from sale of property at A-44/45, Top floor, Jawahar Park, New Delhi. 5.1 The AO notices that the appellant had transferred above stated property on 12.09.2008 at a consideration of Rs. 17,50,000/-. The AO added entire receipt as income from undisclosed sources (AO has not specified any section under which the addition is made). The appellant has contented this addition by way of ground no. 2 of the appeal. 5.2 During the appellate proceedings, the AR contended that sale of this property has been shown in his return of income filed us 139(1). The appellant submitted a copy of acknowledgment of return of income filed on 31.03.2010. The appellant also submitted a copy of computation of income where short term capital gain in respect of this property has been shown. A perusal of the computation of income (a copy attached as Annexure-I to this order shows that the sale consideration shown by the appellant is exactly matching with the figure adopted by the AO i.e. Rs. 17,50,000/-. Copy of the written submissions submitted by the AR alongwith the paper book were sent to the AO for comments. AO provided her comments vide letter dated 23.03.2018 which are reproduced below: "The assessee was required many times during the assessment proceedings to explain the said property transaction but the assessee never complied. Now the assessee has been submitting the acknowledgement of IT and

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 4

copy of sale deed claiming that the transaction has been duly disclosed by him. In this regard, it is submitted that the figures quoted by the assessee in his IT need to verified like details of improvement expenses and source of investment. In absence of any corroborative evidence it cannot be concluded that the income earned through a sale deed is disclosed in IT in true sprits. 5.3 It can be seen that the IT was available with the department from 31.03.2010 which discloses short term capital gain in respect of sale of this property. The date of sale, amount of sale, date of purchase, amount of purchase and cost of improvement have been disclosed in the computation of income. The purchase consideration is supported by the purchase deed which was sent to the AO. In any case date of purchase deed 11.07.2007 does not fall in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, there is no occasion or reason for making this addition. Therefore, corresponding ground of appeal (no. 2) is allowed and consequently this addition (Rs. 17,50,000/-) is deleted. Issue of addition on account of cash deposited in various bank accounts. 6.1 AO has made addition of Rs. 13,60,000/- on account of four unexplained cash deposits in bank account mentioned with Punjab National Bank (PNB). Vide ground no.3, the appellant has contested this addition: S.No. Name & Address Amount in Bank Name Rs. 1. Nagender S/o Sh. 2,60,000/- Punjab National Bank Dharmdev A-44/45, Jawahar Park, Delhi 2. Nagender S/o Sh. 5,00,000/- Punjab National Bank Dharmdev A-44/45, Jawahar Park, Delhi 3. Nagender S/o Sh. 2,00,000/- Punjab National Bank Dharmdev A-44/45, Jawahar Park, Delhi 4. Nagender S/o Sh. 4,00,000/- Punjab National Bank Dharmdev A-44/45, Jawahar Park, Delhi Total 13,60,000/-

6.2 During the appellate proceedings the contention of the AR was twofold. Firstly, it is the contention of the appellant that two of the transactions (S.No. 1 and 4 of the table mentioned in para 6.1 above) are transactions of withdrawal. The appellant submitted copy of bank statement to buttress his contention which shows

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 5

entries of cash withdrawals on 03.10.2008 (Rs.4,00,000/-) and 13.03.2009 (Rs. 2,60,000/-). Secondly, the appellant contested that deposits of cash made at S.No. 2 and 3 had been made out of the cash withdrawal from HDFC Bank (Account no. 00431000134) Saket Branch. It is the contention of the appellant that cash of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs. 7,50,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/-was withdrawn on 28.08.2008, 29.08.2008 and 01.09.2008, respectively. 6.3 The reply of the appellant was sent to the AO. Vide his letter dt. 23.03.2018, the AO commented as under: "As per ITS information of the assessee as uploaded by Punjab National Bank the assessee made cash deposits amounting to Rs.13,60,000/- in his saving account during the year under consideration. The assessee did not provide narration of these entries despite various opportunities were offered to him. Therefore, the AO added these credit entries to the income of the assessee. The assessee is justifying these entries with withdrawals from other bank in the appellate proceedings, whereas no such justification was given during assessment proceedings. Further, the assessee has not been stating the very purpose of the said transfer and reasons for transferring the amounts in cash instead of other convenient modes available. Also the assessee has not been providing any evidence to prove that the cash deposits were from the same amounts that were withdrawn." 6.4 It can be seen that the AO did not dispute the facts, namely i entries at sl. no. 1 and 4 of the table in para-6.1 above are actually withdrawal entries and i) there is sufficient cash withdrawn (from the account maintained in HDFC Bank) to explain the cash deposits in the PNB, as per entries at sl. no. 2 and 3 of the table in para-6.1 above. Therefore, there is no justification for making addition regarding entries at sr. no. 1 and 4 of the table in para 6.1 above being withdrawal entries. Regarding rest two entries (which are deposit entries), the AO has only raised the following point. My comments about these points are discussed below: Points raised by the Assessing Remarks/Observation of the Officer as comments to the undersigned. submissions of the appellant made during appellate proceedings. That such justification was not As stated above, AO did not extended during assessment dispute the facts that there was stage. sufficient cash withdrawal (from

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 6

The account maintained in HDFC Bank) to explain the cash deposits in the PNB. AO has also not disputed that these bank accounts were in the knowledge Assessing Officer even during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, argument based on the facts on record can certainly be raised during appellate proceedings even if, the same was no raised before the Assessing Officer.

That the appellant is not Once it is clear that there was stating the purpose of said sufficient cash withdrawn (from funds transfer from bank the account maintained in HDFC account in HDFC Bank to the Bank) to explain the cash deposits bank account in PNB {by way in the PNB, not stating purpose of withdrawal of cash from would not make any difference as HDFC Bank and deposit in far as explanation about the PNB (whereas suck transfer source of the deposit is concerned. could have taken place by way Moreover, AO has not pointed out of other means)}. to any query which was posed to the appellant to state such purpose. Therefore, the appellant did not have any onus to discharge in this regard. That the appellant is not In my humble opinion, it has been providing any evidence to established that there was prove that the cash deposited sufficient cash withdrawal (from was out of the cash withdrawal. the account maintained with HDFC Bank) to explain the cash deposits in the PNB and the date of withdrawal of the cash is same or just before the date of deposit. Therefore, the appellant's burden is discharged and the onus shifts upon the revenue. Since, there is no material on record indicating that the cash was not deposited out of the cash withdrawal, therefore, the onus does not shift (back) to the appellant.

6.5 In view of the above discussion, this ground no.3 of the appeal is allowed and the additions (Rs.13,60,000/-) is deleted. xxxxxxxxxxx

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 7

8.5 The appellant has raised a contention that no incriminating material was found in respect of additions made and therefore, the addition is beyond jurisdiction. During the arguments the AR basically relied on the ratio of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court laid down while delivering judgment in case of CIT (C)-III us. Kabul Chawla (Delhi) [2015] 61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi), 234 Taxman 300 and various other judgments of later date on the similar lines. 8.6 I have gone through the impugned assessment order, carefully. It is observed that as a general opening remark, the assessment order does say that incriminating material was found and seized. However, as far additions are concerned there is no reference to any seized material. The First addition (of Rs. 17,50,000/-) is made on the basis of immovable property sale transaction reported through Individual Transaction Statement (ITS) and the second addition (of Rs. 13,60,000/-) has been made based on entries of cash deposit reflected in statement of Bank account maintain with PNB. It is not a case of the AO that this Bank statement was not otherwise disclosed to the Income Tax Department and was unearthed due to action of search & seizure. Therefore, it is difficult to agree with the general proposition made by the AO that there was incriminating material (which had live connection with the search action) (and) on the basis of which the additions have been made. 8.7 In CIT (C)-III vs. Kabul Chawla (Delhi) [2015] 61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi), 234 Taxman 300 the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi have held that an assessment has to be made under this section only on the basis of seized material and in absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made, and that completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153A, only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment, and concluded that since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed. This judgment has been considered in all the existing judgments on the matter, some of which have been referred to by the AR in his arguments. 8.8 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a recent judgment delivered in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central -2, New Delhi Vs. Meeta Gutgutia [2017] 82 taxmann.com 287 (Delhi has held that invocation of section 153A by revenue for assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04 was without any legal basis where there

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 8

was no incriminating material qua each of those assessment years. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: "38. It appears that the seized cash was added to the income during the year of search and not in relation to any of the other AYs i.e., AYs 2000-01 to 2004-05. The documents as stated by the Revenue in its Memorandum of Appeal in ITA No. 306/2017 viz., Annexures A1, A3 to A5 stated to pertain to AY 2003-04, 2005-06, 2004-05, and 2006-07 respectively have neither been described as such or in any detail by the Revenue either in these appeals. They have not been referred to or discussed in any of the orders of the AO or the CIT (A). Although it was repeatedly urged by Mr. Manchanda that there were "hundreds of seized documents", what is necessary to examine is whether they were in fact 'incriminating documents'. Any and every document cannot be and is in fact not an incriminating document. The legal position, as will be discussed shortly, is that there can be no addition made for a particular AY without there being an incriminating material qua that AY which would justify such an addition. Therefore, the mere fact there may have been documents pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. In any event, the aforementioned documents i.e., Al, A3, A4 and A5 pertain to only some of the AYs with which we are concerned i.e., AYs 2003-04, and 2004-05. The Court is unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Manchanda that there was incriminating material other than what has been discussed in the orders of the AO, CIT (A) and the ITAT for the AYs in question. 39. It requires to be noticed at this stage that for AY 2004- 05, the ITAT has proceeded on the basis that there was incriminating material and that finding has become final since there is no appeal before this Court by the Assessee. It is another matter that the ITAT rejected the plea of the Revenue that for the said AY the CIT (A) wrongly deleted five of the additions made by the AO for that AY on such incriminating material. Consequently, this Court has to only examine the justification for invocation of Section 153A by the Revenue for AYs 2000-01 to 2003-04" (emphasis supplied). 8.9 In view of the above discussion, it is held that as far as present assessment year is concerned, there was no incriminating material which emanated from the search and seizure action. The AO was

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 9

not within the jurisdiction bestowed on him by law to make the impugned additions and, therefore, additional ground is allowed and as a consequence, the (impugned) assessment order is, accordingly, quashed. However, it is observed that this adjudication is only on technical ground. The A is free to consider the case from angle of taking action under relevant provision of the IT Act, 1961 including provisions for reopening under section 147/148, if otherwise applicable.” 8. Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal.

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 10

against the Revenue on the premise that in the absence of incriminating material in the concluded assessment, the foundation for addition under Section 153A is sorely missing.

ITA No.6391/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2010-11)

“1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that there was no incriminating material unearthed during the search. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that ratio of judgment in the case of Kabul Chawla is applicable in this case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.80,92,000/- made by the AO on account of cash deposits in bank account.”

11.1 There are two additions in this assessment year. First addition is of Rs. 82,72,000/-. This addition has been made because, as per the AO, there are cash deposits of Rs. 82,72,000/- in the bank account maintained with PNB, New Delhi. As per the AO, the appellant did not comply with the notice u/s 142(1) and therefore, the AO treated these deposits as unexplained. This addition has been contested vide ground no.2 of the appeal. 11.2 During the appellate proceedings, the AR contested that AO has not considered the cash withdrawals shown in the statement of the same bank account. The AR submitted a chart showing date- wise cash deposits and withdrawals from the same bank account in PNB. The said chart is reproduced as under:

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 11

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 12

11.3 A perusal of above reproduced chart shows that there are cash withdrawals of amount of Rs. 1,24,16,683/- and the cash deposits are of Rs. 82,72,000/-. This chart was part of written submissions made by the AR during present appellate proceedings. This written submissions was sent to the AO for comments vide letter dated 12.03.2018. The attention of the AO was specifically drawn towards this chart and AO was asked to comment on the same, as under: "2. Your attention is invited to page Nos.27, 8, 5, 6, & 5 of the paper books for AYs. 2010-11 to 2014-15 respectively whereby there are charts of cash deposits and withdrawal by the appellant. It is the contention of the AR that the withdrawals are more than deposits, and hence the addition made can be sustained. Please send your comments, on this point, specifically."

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 13

11.4 The AO has send his report vide letter dated 23.03.2018. However, the AO did not make any specific comment on the chart mentioned above. It is a matter of fact that the details of cash withdrawals are also in the same bank statement which is having the entries of cash deposits which have been made the basis of the addition by the AO. Therefore, facts of cash withdrawal is considered. At no point of time, the running balance of cash (considering total withdrawal minus total cash deposits upto said point of time) was less than Rs. 20,000/-. However, this position is emerging only after considering opening balance of Rs. 2,00,000/ - for which there is no supporting evidence. Therefore, there is a negative cash balance of Rs. 1,80,000/-as on 13.04.2009. 11.5 In view of the above facts and circumstances, this ground (no.2) appeal is partly allowed and as a consequence, the addition is confirmed t the extent of Rs. 1,80,000 / - and balance (Rs. 80,92,000/-) is deleted. Xxxxxxxxxx 13.2 These points have already been discussed above (while adjudicating Appeal no.276/16-17). The facts and circumstances as well as stand of the appellant is same as was Appeal no.276/ 16- 17. In this assessment year there are two additions but none of the additions is based upon seized document. One is based upon perusal of the bank statement and another is upon perusal of the balance sheet. It is not the case of the AO that the bank account or the balance sheet were not disclosed but for the search & seizure action. Therefore, adopting the same reasoning, the additional ground is accepted, the ground (no. 1) is dismissed and additional ground of appeal is partly allowed and as consequence, the impugned assessment order in quashed as there was no incriminating material which emanated from the search and seizure action and which formed the basis of the additions under consideration. However, it is observed that this adjudication is only on technical ground. The AO is free to consider the case from angle of taking action under relevant provision of the IT Act, 1961 including provisions for reopening under section 147/148, if otherwise applicable. 16. The CIT(A) has analyzed the facts towards source of cash deposits and written a finding that such cash deposits are out of past cash withdrawal and the transactions are duly reported.

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 14

challenge to the order of the CIT(A) by the Revenue thus does not hold any water.

ITA No.6392/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2011-12)

• Firstly applicability of ratio of judgment in the case of Kabul Chawla and observations of the CIT(A) that in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the search no addition under Section 153A is permissible;

• Secondly, justification of addition of Rs.1,11,84,000/- on account of cash deposits in bank account, the CIT(A) has dealt with the issue as under:

17.1 Vide ground no. 2, the appellant has contested the addition of Rs.1 1,11,84,000/-. This addition has been made because as per AO there are cash deposits of Rs. 1,11,84,000/- in the bank account maintained with PNB, New Delhi and HDFC Bank, New Delhi. As per the AO, the appellant did not comply with the notice u/s 142(1) and therefore, AO treated this as unexplained. This ground of the appeal is identical to the ground no.2 in Appeal no. 277 / 16-17 (adjudicated above). 17.2 During the appellate proceedings, the AR contested that AO has not considered the cash withdrawals shown in the statement of the same bank account. The AR submitted a chart showing date- wise cash deposits in PNB Bank and HDFC Bank and withdrawals from the same bank account in PNB. The said chart is reproduced as under:

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 15

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 16

17.3 The arguments of the AR, the version of the AO in the assessment order as well as in the remand report is the same as mentioned in the Appeal no.277 / 16-17. Adopting the same reasoning, it is seen that it is a matter of fact that the details of cash withdrawals are also in the same bank statement which is having the entries of cash deposits and which have been made the basis of the addition by the AO. Therefore, facts of cash withdrawal is considered. At no point of time, the running balance of cash (considering total withdrawal minus total cash deposits till that particular point of time was less than Rs. 2,920/-. However, this position is emerging only after considering opening balance of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The AR argued that as per the chart submitted during the appellate proceedings of A.Y. 2010-11, there was cash withdrawal from this vary bank

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 17

account of Rs. 1,22, 16,683/- (without considering the opening cash balance at hand of Rs. 2,00,000/-) against which the deposits are only Rs.82,72,000/-. Therefore, the opening cash balance of Rs. 6,00,000/- is justifiable. In absence of any material to the contrary, this argument of the appellant cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, the source of cash deposits during the assessment year is treated as explained.

17.4 In view of the above facts and circumstances, this ground (no.2) of appeal is allowed and as a consequence, the addition is (Rs. 1,11,84,000/-) is deleted. Xxxxxxxxxxx

18.2 These points have already been discussed above (while adjudicating Appeal no.276/16-17). The facts and circumstances as well as stand of the appellant is same as was Appeal no.276/16-17. In this assessment year, there is only one addition which not based upon any seized material. The addition is, instead, based upon perusal of the statements of the bank accounts. It is not the case of the AO that these bank accounts were not disclosed but for the search & seizure operation. Therefore, adopting the same reasoning, the additional ground is accepted, the ground (no. 1) is dismissed and additional ground of appeal is partly allowed and as consequence, the impugned assessment order in quashed as there was no incriminating material which emanated from the search and seizure action and which formed the basis of the additions under consideration. However, it is observed that this adjudication is only on technical ground. The AO is free to consider the case from angle of taking action under relevant provision of the IT Act, 1961 including provisions for reopening under section 147/148, if otherwise applicable.” 21. Similar to the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11, the CIT(A) found that the source of cash deposits are cash withdrawal at some earlier point of time. We see no error per se in the order of the CIT(A) on both aspects, i.e. merits of the additions and the jurisdictions under Section 153A. We thus decline to interfere.

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 18

ITA No. 6393/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

“1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that there was no incriminating material unearthed during the search. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that ratio of judgment in the case of Kabul Chawla is applicable in this case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.25,80,000/- made by the AO on account of cash deposits in bank account.”

“22.1 Vide ground no. 2, the appellant has contested that the addition of Rs.25,80,000/-. This addition has been made because, as per the AO, there are cash deposits of Rs. 25,80,000/- in the bank account maintained with PNB, New Delhi. As per the AO, the appellant did not comply with the notice u/s 142(1) and therefore, the AO treated these cash deposits as unexplained. This ground of the appeal is identical to the ground no.2 in Appeal no. 277 / 16-17 (adiudicated above). 22.2 During the appellate proceedings, the AR contested that AO has not considered the cash withdrawals shown in the statement of the said same bank account. The AR submitted a chart showing date-wise cash deposits and withdrawals from the same bank account in PNB. The said chart is reproduced as under:

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 19

22.3 The arguments of the AR, the version of the AO in the assessment order as well as in the remand report, are the same as mentioned in Appeal no.277/16-17. Adopting the same reasoning, it is seen that it is a matter of fact that the details of cash withdrawals are also in the same bank statement which is having

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 20

the entries of cash deposits (and) which have been made the basis of the addition by the AO. Therefore, facts of cash withdrawal is considered. At no point of time, the running balance of cash (considering total withdrawal minus total cash deposits till such point of time) was less than Rs. 3,10,000/-. It is also noted that in this assessment year, the chart starts with nil opening balance. Since, at no point of time, the running cash balance was negative, therefore, the source of cash deposits during the assessment year is treated as explained. 22.4 In view. of the above facts and circumstances, this ground (no.2) of appeal is allowed and as a consequence, the addition is (Rs. 25,80,000/-) is deleted. 23.1 Ground no.1 is general and through the same the appellant has contested general validity of the impugned assessment order on two accounts viz. i) that it (the impugned assessment order) was issued after time barring date, and i) there was no incriminating material, based on which additions have been made. Also, during the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant vide application d. nil, requested for admission of additional ground as under: "That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law as well as on facts of the case in making addition to the income of the appellant on the issues in respect of which no incriminating documents/evidence were found during the course of search action at his premises." 23.2 These points have already been discussed above (while adjudicating Appeal no.276/16-17). The facts and circumstances as well as stand of the appellant is same as was Appeal no.276/16-17. In this assessment year, there only one addition which is not based upon any seized material. The addition is, instead, based upon cash deposits in a bank statement. It is not the case of the AO that this bank account was not disclosed but for search and seizure action. Therefore, adopting the same reasoning, the additional ground is accepted, the ground (no.1) is dismissed and additional ground of appeal is partly allowed and as consequence, the impugned assessment order in quashed as there was no incriminating material which emanated from the search and seizure action and which formed the basis of the additions under consideration. However, it is observed that this adjudication is only on technical ground. The AO is free to consider the case from angle of taking action under relevant provision of the IT Act, 1961 including provisions for reopening under section 147 / 148, if otherwise applicable.” 25. In parity with the reasons noted in respect of other captioned appeals, we find no error committed by the CIT(A) which may call

I.T.A No.6390 to 6393/Del/2018 21

for our indulgence. We thus see no reason to disturb the order of the CIT(A) on both counts towards lack of jurisdiction under Section 153A and merits of additions.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/04/2023.

Sd/- Sd/- [KUL BHARAT] [PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: /04/2023 Prabhat