TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls) ["CIT(A)"] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer, despite the fact that the assessment order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is without jurisdiction, void ab initio, illegal and deserved to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the AO despite that the proceedings initiated under section 153A against the assessee and the assessment order passed under section 153A/143(3) are in violation of the statutory conditions of the Act and the procedure prescribed under the law and as such the same is bad in the eye df law and liable to be quashed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the contention of the assessee that the additions made by the AO under Section 153A/143(3) are bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [''CIT(A)"] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer, despite the fact that the assessment order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is without jurisdiction, void ab initio, illegal and deserved to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the AO despite that the proceedings initiated under section 153A against the assessee and the assessment order passed under section 153A/143(3) are in violation of the statutory conditions of the Act and the procedure prescribed under the law and as such the same is bad in the eye of law and liable to be quashed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the contention of the assessee that the additions made by the AO under Section 153A/143(3) are bad in law in the absence of any incriminating mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in ignoring the contention of the assessee that the assessment order under section 153A/143(3) has been passed without there being valid Document Identification Number (DIN) quoted on the body of the assessment order, violating the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the above addition by indulging in surmises and conjectures without bringing on any direct evidence against the assessee, only on the basis of presumption and assumption. The assessee craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. ITA No. 1796/Del/2025 (AY 2018-19) 4. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 6.1.2021 at the residence/ business premises of Hans Group, including the assessee. During the search conducted in the case of the assessee, a notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued on 09.11.2021 requiring assessee to furnish the return of income for the year under consideration being one of the six assessment years preceding the assessment year in which search was conducted within 15 days ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsustainable in law, because the sole basis of the addition is loose sheet dated 4.3.2017 is placed at paper book Page No. 11. Since this loose sheet pertains to FY 2016-17 i.e. AY 2017-18 and therefore, no addition could have been made on the basis of making presumption without there being any other evidence being on record in these two assessment years i.e. AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20. Learned Counsel for the assessee further stated that the assumption is factually incorrect as alleged. The loose sheet nowhere mentioned any sale consideration. A plain reading of the said sheet shows that it only contains some rough calculation regarding cost of land, construction etc. and there is no iota of evidence of any unaccounted consideration being received as mentioned in this sheet. It is further stated that it is an undisputed fact that this property was originally purchased by the co-owners including the assessee a way back in 2012 and as such there cannot be any allegation of any purchase consideration being paid during the year under consideration. It was also contended by the Ld. AR assessee that CIT(A) has arbitrarily confirmed the order passed by the AO. 8. Per contra, Ld. DR sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wherein, it has been held that in abated years, no addition can be made without incriminating material relating to the relevant year. Respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, the addition in dispute is hereby deleted and ground no. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal for AY 2018-19 is allowed in aforesaid manner. ITA No. 1797/Del/2025 for AY 2019-20 12. As regards appeal relating to assessment year 2019-20 is concerned, the issue raised vide Ground No. 6 is relating to addition of Rs. 84,32,000/- on account of unaccounted cash received from transfer of immovable property. Since this issue is exactly same involved in the AY 2018-19, as aforesaid. Hence, our aforesaid decision as taken in assessment year 2018-19 will apply mutatis mutandis to the assessment year 2019-20, accordingly, the addition of Rs. 84,32,000/- stand deleted and ground no. 6 of the appeal for assessment year 2019-20 is allowed. 13. As regards other Ground No. 8 relating to addition of Rs. 98,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act is concerned, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that during the course of search and seizure proceedings, the mobile phone of the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s neither the purchaser nor the seller of the said property and that, in the line of brokerage business, it was a common trade practice to sign receipts on behalf of the parties for the purpose of building trust and facilitating transactions. It is submitted that the assessee is a property dealer engaged merely in facilitation of sale and purchase of properties and had no ownership interest in property bearing no. C-84, Preet Vihar, Delhi, being neither the buyer nor the seller therein. It was pointed out that the Agreement to Sell clearly records the names of the actual parties i.e. Shri Keshav Chawla and Shri Manoj Jain as sellers and Shri Mukhjit Singh as purchaser, and the assessee's name does not appear as a contracting party, his role being limited to that of a broker. It is further submitted that the receipts relied upon by the Assessing Officer were signed by the assessee, wherever appearing, only on behalf of the seller in the ordinary course of brokerage practice and not in his personal capacity, as also explained in the statement recorded during assessment proceedings. It was contended that in absence of any evidence showing the assessee as purchaser or seller, no owners....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid transaction was only in the capacity of a facilitator. The receipts relied upon by the Assessing Officer, wherever bearing the signature of the assessee, indicate that such signatures were made on behalf of the seller and not in his individual capacity. This explanation is in consonance with the normal trade practice prevalent in property transactions, where brokers often sign or acknowledge certain documents on behalf of the parties to instill confidence and to facilitate closure of deals. Significantly, the Assessing Officer has not brought any contrary evidence on record to demonstrate that the assessee signed the receipts as an owner of the property. The assessee has given explanation to the AO and the same has been rejected by even without verification. The assessee having acted as a broker and given explanation, the least the AO could have done was to verify from the seller and buyer, identity of whom are clearly visible from the agreement to sell. The AO has simply rejected the explanation of the assessee. It is also pertinent to note that the entire addition has been made merely on the basis of presence of certain digital images and notings without any independent corro....