TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1676
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-15: 1. The learned assessing officer passed assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without jurisdiction and is void ab-inito. 2. There was no search warrant in the name of appellant, here was no incriminating material seized during the search operation from hands of the appellant and there was no panchnama drawn in the appellant. 3. The special audit report u/s 142(2A) is invalid as the special audit was conducted against the provisions of law. 4. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 4,10,817/- being net negative cash as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 1,05,10,000/- on account of alleged purchase of property from Mr. Mohan Pal as alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have ered in making and confirming addition of Rs. 10,66,71,000/- on account of alleged purchase of property from Mr. Mohan Pal as alleged unexplained i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 19,20,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being alleged unexplained unsecured loans. 7. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 23,00,000/- for alleged sale of property to Mrs. Daljit Taneja. 8. The adequate opportunities of being heard and opportunity to cross examine the witness(s)/evidences were not afforded to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. 9. The orders passed are arbitrary, against the provisions of law and facts of the case. 10. The appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time or before bearing of appeal." 4. The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals are that Dinesh Pratap Singh Group and Allied Infra & Others Group of cases consisting of two sub groups: (i) Dinesh Pratap Singh Group and (ii) Allied Infra & Others Group were searched under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). Allied Infra & Others Group consists of Smt. Priya Sharma, Shri Sudhir Chawla, Shri Chaudhary and Other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessments of AYs 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2016-17. 6. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that the case of AY 2011-12 was barred by limitation as search took place in FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18. The Ld. AR also submitted that on similar sets of the facts, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed relief to the wife of assessee; Mrs. Baljeet Rani Chawla by holding that there was no 'incriminating material' seized from Mrs. Baljeet Rani Chawla. However, in the present cases, the Ld. CIT(A) took different stand. Thus, it was not justified on the part of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra), had categorically held that the presence of incriminating material (applicable on a year-by-year basis) was an indispensable requirement under section 153A of the Act. Further, Mr. Matta, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the incriminating material under section 153A of the Act specifically qua the unabated assessments had to be seized during the search carried out on the assessee for making any addition in search assessments. He submitted that the statute might not explicitly state this requirement, but judicial interpretations....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition, contended the Ld. AR. The Ld. AR further contended that the Ld. CIT-DR had not brought any material on the record to establish that there was any 'incriminating material' seized from the assessee. He thus, prayed for quashing of the assessment orders and impugned orders on jurisdictional issue. 10. The Ld. AR submitted that the bank locker co-owned by the assessee and his wife was searched. No addition in the case of assessee's wife was made in any AY as there was no incriminating material. 11. Before us, the Ld. CIT-DR, placing emphasis on the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO prayed for dismissal of these appeals. With the help of facts mentioned in orders of Authorities below, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the incriminating material found in search carried out on the assessee's Group of cases were nothing but incriminating material found in the search. The Ld. CIT-DR further vehemently argued the case by submitting that the incriminating material referred in section 153A of the Act did not necessarily have to be seized in searches carried out on the assessee under section 132 of the Act as the section 153A of the Act did not mandate so. His proposition was that t....