TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law as well as facts of the case, therefore liable to be annulled. 2.That the additions made by Ld. AO to the income of assessee in order passed u/s 153C of the Act are not tenable under the law as no additions were made to the income of assessee relying on alleged incriminating documents found and seized during the course of search and seizure action carried out in the case of Shri Naresh Manakchand Jain which were claimed to be pertaining to assessee. 3.That the assessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 153C of the Act is further illegal and not tenable under the law as no satisfaction note was recorded either by AO of searched person or AO of assessee prior to issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act. 4.That the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and the assessment order passed by Ld. AO are perverse as the proceedings are completed both by Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) without providing satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C of the Act and requisitioned incriminating material for rebuttal. 5.That the assessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 153C of the Act is also not sustainable under the law no valid approval u/s 153D of the Act was availed prior passin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esh Manakchand Jain. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was covered u/s 153C and a notice u/s 153C was issued by Ld. AO to the assessee on 24.12.2020. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 10.02.2021 at Rs. 1.94 Lacs. During the course of assessment proceedings, notices u/s 142(1) were issued calling for various details from the assessee. 3.2 The first additionas made by Ld. AO was on the basis of accommodation entries allegedly provided through M/s Secunderabad Healthcare Ltd. (SHL). The same was pursuant to information as received from investigation wing shared on 05.04.2021 regarding search action at the premises of Shri Nishant Niyati and recovery of several incriminating documents related to various persons. A document was recovered in respect of M/s Secunderabad Healthcare Ltd. (SHL) in which this entity was one of the buyers and paid Rs. 195 Lacs Bayana amount to Shri Prateek Sanghvi. Since SHL was conduit company of the assessee, it was concluded by Ld. AO that all the transactions were caried out by this entity at the instance of the assessee only. The real income was to be assessed in the hands of the assessee. Shri Nishant Niyati, in recorded statemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (149 Taxmann.com 399) and subsequent decision in U.K.Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (150 Taxmann.com 108) to support the arguments. 4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the legal ground on the logic that proceedings were initiated by Ld. AO u/s 153C pursuant to incriminating documents found and seized during search on Shri Manakchand Jain. During the ensuing assessment proceedings, further information was received which indicated that the assessee was providing accommodation entries through conduit entities as mentioned by Ld. AO. Therefore, the jurisdiction was valid. On the issue of approval u/s 153D, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the order was obtained with specific approval of Ld. Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, Mumbai vide letter dated 23.04.2021. The same was clear and unambiguous statement on record. Therefore, this legal ground was rejected. On the legal grounds that no satisfaction note was recorded by Ld. AO u/s 153C, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessment order and subsequent approval u/s 153D confirm that the jurisdictional facts were duly examined by Ld. AO as well as by the supervisory authority.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned by Ld. AO. On the issue of approval u/s 153D, it has been observed by Ld. CIT(A) that the order was passed with specific approval of Ld. Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, Mumbai vide letter dated 23.04.2021. The same was clear and unambiguous statement on record. On the legal grounds that no satisfaction note was recorded by Ld. AO u/s 153C, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessment order and subsequent approval u/s 153D confirm that the jurisdictional facts were duly examined by Ld. AO as well as by the supervisory authority. The statutory requirement of approval u/s 153D, which was duly met, provides the necessary safeguard and oversight for Sec.153C proceedings. We concur with the same. Upon perusal of assessment order, we find that all the jurisdictional requirements have duly been fulfilled by Ld. AO. The assertion of Ld. AR that there was no satisfaction note u/s 153C is bald assertion which are not supported by any cogent evidence on record. The onus is on assessee to support this assertion. In the absence of any such evidence on record, this argument could not be accepted. Another argument that impugned addition could not be made in the absence of any addition based on document....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 124.83 Lacs was found in the bank lockers. After assessee's father was allowed to withdraw 1/4th of the share, the remaining amount of Rs. 93.62 Lacs (representing the share of the assessee and other two defaulters were deposited in the bank account). The issue was source of cash as found in the locker which belong to assessee's family which was subsequently been deposited by the authorities. The assessee failed to explain the source of the same and accordingly, the same was rightly added in the hands of the assessee. We find that this cash was found in the bank lockers. The complete onus to prove the source of the same was on the assessee. However, the assessee has failed to furnish any cogent or plausible explanation as to the source of the same. Keeping cash in the locker, by itself, would indicate that the cash was sourced out of unexplained sources. However, it would appear that the assessee is owner to the extent of 25% only. The Ld. AR has also contended that this income has been assessed during AY 2016-17 which is not borne out of the records. Nevertheless, to provide fair opportunity to the assessee to defend its stand, we restore this issue to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh con....