TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is an individual, who filed his return of income u/s 139 for AY 2020-21 on 17.03.2021 declaring an income of Rs. 26,21,330/-. Notice u/s 153A was issued on 07.09.2021 against which the assessee filed his return on 24.01.2022 declaring the income of Rs. 26,12,330/-. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 02.02.2022. Assessment order dated 31.03.2022 was passed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3). 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and filed grounds of appeal as well as written submissions and the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.03.2025 affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Against the aforesaid order, the assessee filed appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :- "1. The appeal emanates from the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 passed the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 New Delhi ['Ld. CIT(A)-25'] dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant under Section 246 of the Act against the Assessment Order of the Ld. Assessing Officer, Central Circle-8 ("Ld. AO"). Re: Assessment Order passed without jurisdiction - invalid 2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the assessment proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... given by the jurisdictional Addl/Joint CIT-Range 2, under Section 1530 of the Act without mentioning DIN in accordance with CBOT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. Re: Violation of principles of natural justice 8. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law on the facts of the case in confirming the Assessment Order without giving meaningful opportunity of cross examination to the Appellant. 9. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law on the facts of the case in confirming the Assessment Order which was framed on the basis of statements and various inadmissible electronic data/evidence, excel sheets, etc. which cannot constitute valid evidence, inter alia, as per provisions of law and the law governing the collection of digital evidence. 10. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of Ld. AO on account of professional receipt amounting to INR 55,00,00,00/- under Section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure without appreciating that there is no corroborative evidence or independent enquiry conducted by the Ld. AO during the Assessment Proceedings or giving an opportunity of cross examination. 11. Because the Ld. CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0.11.2020, and the statement of the assessee was recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. However, nothing was seized pursuant to the lifting of such order. 3. Further, apart from the above-mentioned panchnamas, no other panchnama was drawn in relation to the assessee. 4. As per section 153B(2)(a) of the Act, the authorization referred to in section 153B(1) shall be deemed to have been executed, in the case of a search, on the conclusion of the search as recorded in the last panchnama drawn in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorization has been issued. 5. The last panchnama in relation to the assessee was drawn on 01.03.2020. Therefore, the last authorization of search in respect of the assessee shall be deemed to have been executed on 01.03.2020, and accordingly, the time limit for framing the assessment in the case of the assessee would commence from the end of the financial year 2019-20, i.e., 31.03.2021. 6. As per section 153B(1) of the Act, the time limit for framing assessments in cases where the search was conducted in the financial year 2019-20 is 12 months from the end of the financial year in which the last autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n.com 292/398 ITR 33 (Raj.). (x) CIT v. White & White Mineral (P.) Ltd. [2011] 12 taxmann.com 120/200 Taxman 192 (Mag.)/330 ITR 172 (Raj.). (xi) CIT v. Om Prakash Mandora [2013] 37 taxmann.com 426/[2014] 222 Taxman 138 (Raj.). (xii) M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur., [2024] 115 ITR (Trib) 548 (ITAT [Viskha]) (xiii) M/s Index Logistics Pvt Ltd Versus ACIT, 2025 (7) TMI 1098 - ITAT MUMBAI (xiv) Late Pravin M. Shah, Nirmal Banwani Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 47, Mumbai- 2011 (3) TMI 1690 - ITAT MUMBAI b) That it was lifted beyond the period of 60 days which is in contravention to section 132(8A) * That the prohibitory order dated 01.03.2020 was lifted on 20.11.2020 (refer to the statement of the assessee recorded on 20.11.2020, annexed at page no. 58-59 of the paper book), whereas, in terms of section 132(8A) of the Act, it had in fact ceased to be in force after the expiry of 60 days, i.e., on 30.04.2020. * That therefore, the search of the almirah on 20.11.2020, being beyond 60 days and without there being any separate au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he almirah in respect of which the prohibitory order was issued had already been searched on 01.03.2020, and nothing new could have been seized upon the lifting of such prohibitory order. * It is a settled proposition of law that where nothing newhave been seized in pursuance of the lifting of a prohibitory order, the panchnama drawn at the time of such lifting cannot be considered for determining the date of conclusion of the search. * For the above proposition, the assessee relies upon the following judicial precedents: (i) PPC Business and Products (P.) Ltd. (supra). (ii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.D. Axles (P.) Ltd. (supra). (iii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deepak Aggarwal (supra). (iv) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sandhya P. Naik (supra). (v) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of White & White Mineral (P.) Ltd. (supra). (vi) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Capt. Vijay Kumar Raichand, 2015 (4) TMI 556 - ITAT DELHI 8. Even the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO, in the remand report, accepted that AY 2020-21 is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aul v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 164 taxmann.com 778 (Manipur HC) iv. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. Kappumalai Estate [1998] 234 ITR 187 (Ker.) and K. Joseph Jacob v. Agricultural ITO [1991] 190 ITR 464 (Ker.) v. B J N Hotels Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 336 (Kar. HC) vi. Instrumentation Laboratory India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, 2024 (4) TMI 925- ITAT DELHI vii. Dhanterash Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, 2024 (2) TMI 1554- ITAT KOLKATA viii. Shanti Lal Godawat v. ACIT [2009] 126 TTJ 135 (Jodhpur) ix. Pankaj Sharma v. DCIT (Central) ITA Nos. 3556 & 3557/Del/2015 (ITAT Delhi, order dated 08.02.2019) x. Sri Trinadh Chowdary v. ACIT IT(SS)A Nos. 44-46/CTK/2016 (ITAT Cuttack) xi. Geetarani Panda v. ACIT IT(SS)A Nos. 01 & 02/CTK/2017 (ITAT Cuttack, order dated 05.07.2018) xii. M/s. Nidan v. ACIT (2018) 53 CCH 0046 (ITAT Cuttack) 12. In the cases referred at serial numbers vii to x above, various benches of the Hon'ble Tribunal have held that assessment orders under section 153A are time-barred if they are merely made within the period prescribed under section 153B but dispatched thereafter (even by a s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is because the DIN of the impugned order itself was generated in FY 2022-23, i.e., after 31.03.2022. The screenshot of the ITBA case history, annexed by the AO in his RTI reply, shows that the order dated 31.03.2022 was generated with DIN ITBA/AST/M/1/153A/2022- 23/104255229(1). The process of DIN generation is automatic and necessarily incorporates the financial year in which it is generated. Therefore, once the DIN itself reflects FY 2022-23, the order could not possibly have been uploaded/issued before 31.03.2022. 21. This aspect has been directly considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Acropolis Realty (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2024] 168 taxmann.com 406 (Delhi), wherein it was held as under: "In the present case, the impugned notice was digitally signed on 01.04.2023. Thus, the process of digitally generating the same on the system was completed on 01.04.2023. Plainly, the impugned notice could not have been issued prior to the same being signed. The fact that the steps to generate the impugned notice commenced on 31.03.2023 cannot be a ground to hold that the impugned notice was issued on 31.03.2023. The date of the said notice is correctly reflected as 01.04.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not have been reopened under section 153A. Instead, a notice under section 153A was wrongly issued for the impugned year. 27. The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO on this ground. In his report (reproduced at P. No. 39-40 of the CIT(A)'s order), the AO admitted that till the issuance of notice under section 153A on 07.09.2021, the time limit for issuing a notice under section 143(2) had already expired, and further, that the seized material was received only on 17.09.2021. The AO contended, however, that since the assessee had filed a return in response to notice under section 153A, and a notice under section 143(2) was subsequently issued, the defect was cured by operation of sections 292B and 292BB of the Act. It is noteworthy that the AO never disputed the fact that AY 2020-21 is the search year. In reply, it was submitted before the CIT(A) that sections 292B and 292BB cannot cure a jurisdictional defect, as they apply only to procedural irregularities. 28. The CIT(A), while adjudicating upon this ground, accepted the fact that AY 2020-21 is indeed the search year. However, relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in A.R. Safiullah ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... AR of the assessee has taken several legal grounds on the basis of which it has been claimed that the assessment made U/S 153A is barred by limitation. Assessee's grounds as well as my submissions on them are as under: 1. Assessee's ground is that the date of Search is 27.02.2020 and consequent to that a Prohibitory order was placed on 1.03.20 on one of the premises. However, no Panchnama was drawn and the restraint expired on 30.9.2020. Hence the time limit for completion of Assessment order was 30.9.2021. As the order was passed on 31.3.2022, the same is time barred. In this regard the undersigned would like to bring to your notice the fact-that in case of assessee, not 1 but 2 Searches had taken place by issuing 2 separate Warrants of Authorization. The first one was executed on 27.02.20 and the second one on 21.11.2020. This fact has been mentioned in para one of the Assessment order and is reproduced as under for your kind perusal: "A Search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961(herein after referred to as the Act) was carried out on Raipur group of cases on 27.02.20. The assessee Sri Amolak Singh Bhatia (herein after referr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er is reproduced for your kind perusal: "The additions/disallowances made in the order on the following accounts have been examined on merit and found to be in order: a) Addition on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C Rs. 55,00,00,000/- b) Addition on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C Rs. 4,75,000/- c) Addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A Rs. 57,53,000/- In view of the details furnished, perusal of assessment records and various discussions with you in this regard, approval u/s 153D of the IT Act, 1961 is hereby accorded. " From the above, it is evident that the approval has been accorded after discussing the issues in detail several times with the Assessing Officer, and after considering all the relevant records. Hence the allegation of nonapplication of mind is baseless and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Assessee has also raised the legal ground that Assessment order was passed on the basis of statements made and various inadmissible digital evidences without giving any meaningful opportunity to cross examine. This, again is a meaningless argument for the reason that 2 additions of 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s 143(3) or 153A, they are as under :- (i) Search was initiated on 27.02.2020 (ii) Last pachnama was raised on 01.03.2020 (iii) Prohibitory order (PO) was passed on 01.03.2020 (iv) As per records, the above PO was lifted on 20.11.2020 (v) Statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) on 20.11.2020 (vi) Second search was initiated on 19.11.2020 (as submitted by the Ld DR) (a) The second search was completed on 21.11.2020 (b) Notice u/s 153A was issued on 07.09.2021 (c) Assessment order u/s 153A was passed on 31.03.2022. 8. From the above factual matrix, we observed that the first search was conducted on 27.02.2020 and temporarily completed the search by passing the panchnama on 01.03.2020 and also passed PO u/s 132(3) on 01.03.2020. Meantime, the department has not carried out any action until they visited the assessee and lifted the PO on the Almira which was kept under PO only on20.11.2020. They also taken statement of the assessee on 20.11.2020 and subsequently another warrant of authorisation u/s 132 of the Act was issued and executed on 21.11.2020. 9. From the above information availabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20 u/s 132(4), when the search itself is concluded on 30.04.2020, there is no room to take statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. 12. Further, the AO can proceed with the assessment u/s 153A based on the material found during the second search, that is loose papers found in the Almira on 21.11.2020 and can frame as well as complete the assessment u/s 143(3) in the search assessment year and if there is any impact of those material in the proceedings assessment years, can initiate proceedings u/s 153A for immediately preceding 6 assessment years. The relevance is the new incriminating materials found in the second search proceedings that are the loose papers found in the Almira. They cannot utilise any of the incriminating materials found in the first search in the assessment proceedings-initiated u/s 153A for the second search initiated on 21.11.2020. As discussed above, the alternative available to the department is only to initiate the proceedings under the provisions of the section 147 of the Act. 13. From the records we observed that the AO had completed the assessment u/s 153A only based on the material seized during the first search to complete the assessment year under consi....