TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or condonation of the same. After considering the reasons stated by the assessee and upon hearing the submissions of the Learned Departmental Representative ("Ld. DR"), we are satisfied that the delay was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, the delay of 06 days in filing of all these appeals are condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in ITA Nos.1000 to 1005/Hyd/2025 of the appeals. For the purpose of clarity, the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1000/Hyd/2025 are reproduced as under: 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The appellant submits that the basis for the assessment under 153C being the satisfaction note is not a satisfaction note at all in the eyes of law and therefore the proceedings based on such invalid satisfaction note are not tenable in law and as such the same should be held illegal. 3. The appellant submits that the name of the appellant is being included in a proceeding namely transaction of agreement of sale, to wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of jurisdiction. 7. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of Rs.41,927/- as long term capital gains. 8. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,88,241/-, claimed u/s.80C. 9. Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing." 6. The brief facts common to all these appeals are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 22.11.2018 in the premises of Shri Mohammed Abdul Sattar and others ("the searched person"). During the course of the said search operation, certain documents were found and seized from the premises of the searched person. The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") recorded a satisfaction note dated 12.10.2022, stating that the seized material belonged to the assessee. On the basis of the said satisfaction note, notices under section 153C of the Act were issued to the assessee for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2019-20. In response thereto, the assessee filed returns of income for all the said A.Ys. Thereafter, notices under section 143(2) of the Act were issued and, after considering the submissions of the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tisfaction note for multiple assessment years, namely from AY 2013-14 to AY 2019-20. We have also gone through the 1st page of the copy of seized documents in the form of "Agreement of Sale" placed at page no. 2 of the paper book, which is to the following effect: 12. On perusal of the above, we further find that the seized document relied upon by the Revenue is an agreement of sale dated 28.08.2018, which, at best, can pertain only to Assessment Year 2019-20, and there is no material on record linking the seized document to the other assessment years. In this regard, we find that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (469 ITR 197) has categorically held, at para no. 53 of the judgment, that separate satisfaction is required to be recorded under section 153C of the Act for each assessment year, and that recording of a consolidated satisfaction note for different assessment years would vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. We further note that the SLP filed by the Revenue against the said judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in the case of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (469 ITR 271). For the purposes of comple....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), with reference to agricultural land admeasuring Ac.05.12 1/2 guntas for a total sale consideration of Rs. 10 crores and received an amount of Rs.3 crores in cash towards advance amount from the above vendees. It is found during the post assessment proceedings in the case of Sri Mohammed Basheer Khan that the said property got registered on 27.09.2019, where the assessee Sri Bharat Kumar Bansal along with others (totalling 6 vendors) registered the property in favor of Mr. Gulam Samdani Farooqi and Mrs Anees Begum for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/ -. Since the number of vendors as appearing in the sale agreement and sale deed are six persons, their share in the consideration received has been calculated on the basis of their share in land sold. Accordingly, the share of assessee i.e. Sri Bharat Kumar Bansal is worked out in the table below : S. No. Name of the vendor Portion (in Gts) Share of the vendor 1. Mohd Abdul Sattar 44.5 20.94% 2. Fareeda Banu 20.5 9.64% 3. Heena Kauser 65 30.59% 4. Mohd Basheer Khan 27.5 12.94% 5. Hasan Bin Ahmed alias Hassan Zumbli 27.5 12.94% 6. Bharat Kumar Bansal 27.5 12.94% Total 212.5 Therefore, on verification of the ....