TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see are also common which fact is admitted by both the parties, therefore, both the appeals are taken together and decided by a common order. 3. First we take up the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 in ITA No. 401/Del/2023. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income u/s 139(1) on 27.11.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 5,18,620/-. A search and seizure action was carried out in the case of Jindal Bullion Ltd. Group (JBL) on 05.01.2017. Based on the digital data maintained in a software called Hazir Johri, which was seized from residential cum business premises of Sh. Kusharg Jindal (promoter and director of JBL group), proceeding u/s 153C of the Act in the case of the assessee were initiated after recording the satisfaction by the AO of the assessee upon the receipt of the materials from the AO of the person searched. In response to notice u/s 153C issued, assessee has filed return of income on 19.03.2021 declaring income of Rs. 5,18,620/- as was declared in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Thereafter AO alleged that the assessee is having unrecorded transactions with JBL Group as is evident from the ledger....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the, issuance of Manual Assessment Order not having DIN, without approval of the Chief CIT/DGIT as valid, in defiance of mandatory directions of CBDT vide Para 3 of its Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14th August 2019 which is arbitrary and unlawful, makes the Assessment Order void-ab-initio. 4.3 That, the Learned Assessing Officer has delayed by 5 months and 16 days in communicating DIN issued for Assessment Order and further in defiance of mandatory directions of CBDT vide Para 3 of its Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14th August 2019 and further did not disclose this fact to CIT(A) in Remand proceedings and merely communicated that DIN had been generated on 14/01/2022 thereby misleading the Learned CIT(A), which is arbitrary, unjustified and unlawful, makes the Assessment Order void-ab- initio. 5. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 1 to 4: 5.1 The Assessing Officer, relied on certain seized document(s), statements in the Assessment Order which were not confronted to the Appellant whereas the Appellant filed detailed Objections dated 03.11.2021 and required the AO to supply all documents / statements if any pertaining to the Appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore or at the time of hearing." 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed the Ground of appeal Nos.4 to 4.3, therefore, same are dismissed. 7. Grounds of appeal No.1 to 3 & 5 are with respect to initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act wherein the assessee has challenged the action of the AO by stating that material seized was not pertaining to the assessee and further claimed that the order u/s 153C was time barred. In support, before us, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee did not enter into any such unrecorded cash transactions with JBL Group and all the transactions were made through bank channel and duly recorded in the books of account maintained by the assessee. Ld. AR submits that AO has relied upon the entries found recorded in Hazir Johri Software seized from the possession of third party and by placing reliance on the statements of Ms. Parul Ahluwalia, director and former employee of JBL wherein she had admitted of such transactions as unrecorded sales, however, nowhere in her statements, name of the assessee was stated. Ld. AR further argued that no opportunity of cross examination of Ms. Parul Ahluwalia was given t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts do not pertain to the assessee and no opportunities of cross examination was provided. The digital data in Hazir Johari software was found and seized from the residence of Sh. Kusharg Jindal (promoter and director of JBL group) which contained transactions in cash with various persons. It is observed that based on this data, additions were made in the case of various other persons whose names were appearing in the said digital data wherein additions of alleged cash transactions made by the authorities below stood deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi. One of such case is of Sachin where in ITA No.2614/Del/2022, the Co-ordinate Bench has made following observations while deleting the additions: "13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that a search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 05.01.2017 in the case of Jindal Bullion Ltd (JBL). During this search, digital data stored in software called "Hazir Johri" was seized from the residence of Mr. Kushagra Jindal, promoter of JBL. The said software purportedly contained parallel books maintained by JBL where both transactions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e hands of the assessee. 14. We also find that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Anoop Kumar Soni vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1641/Del/2021 dated 2.8.2023, wherein while adjudicating almost similar facts related to search on JBL, the Tribunal held that since the ledger found during the search "AP" contains the entries of parties other than assessee, then said ledger cannot be said to be belonging to assessee and addition made on the basis of assumption was deleted. The relevant observations made by the Tribunal in this regard are as under:- "30. The banking transactions pertaining to other entities such as Aarthav Gems & Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Surasti Overseas Pvt. Ltd., M/s Saumya Bullion &Jewellers were also recorded in the account AP whereas it had nothing to do with the assessee. In the Remand Report dated 02.08.2021 the Assessing Officer verified all these banking transactions and accepted the contentions of the assessee. In other words, it was verified by the Assessing Officer that some of the banking transactions recorded in the account AP pertain to other entities and not the assessee. Only 23% of the total banking transactions pertain to assessee a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not prove actual transactions without corroborative evidence such as bills or invoices. The additions are based on conjecture and the statement of Mr. Parul Ahluwalia lacking supporting evidence was deleted. The relevant findings of the said decision are as under:- "9. We have given our careful thought to the submission of the parties and perused the records. The facts are not in dispute. During assessment proceedings the common plea of the assessee in both the AY(s) was that merely entries found in the Hajir Johri ledger of M/s. JBL supposedly in the name of M/s. S.K. Impex, the proprietary concern of the assessee does not tantamount to actual transactions having taken place in the absence of any corroborative evidence such as bills, invoices, challans etc. There is no linking in the order of the Ld. AO/CIT(A) that the alleged cash transactions are substantiated by any supporting evidence as claimed by the assessee. On the contrary, the impugned additions are based purely on conjectures and surmises solely relying on the statement of Ms. Parul Ahluwalia, Director and former employee of M/s. JBL, the entity subjected to search operation during which her statement was reco....