ACIT,CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE V. KOHINOOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PUNE

ITSSA 2/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the Revenue against two separate entities, Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation, concerning additions made to their income assessments for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The additions were based on incriminating material found during a search operation under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, conducted on the Kohinoor Group. The CIT(A) had earlier deleted these additions, citing the absence of incriminating material directly related to the assessee's own search. However, the Tribunal found that the material, although found in another group's search, was relevant and incriminating concerning the assessee's case, thus justifying the additions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829586 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Pune
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., Kabul Chawla vs. CIT, Saumya Construction vs. CIT, B. Kishore Kumar vs. Dy. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMOL KHAIRNAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V.L. JAIN
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Documents seized; Third party statement; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Block assessment; Loose papers; Opportunity of cross examination; Tangible material
• Section: 148; 143(3); 142(1); 132; 153A; 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A No.1/PUN/2025 \u0001नधा\u0005रण वष\u0005 / Assessment Year : 2012-13 ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Pune Vs. Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal, A-102, ICC Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Model Colony, Pune 411 016, Maharashtra PAN : AASPG3891P Applicant Respondent IT(SS)A No.2/PUN/2025 \u0001नधा\u0005रण वष\u0005 / Assessment Year : 2012-13 ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Pune Vs. Kohinoor Development Corporation, A-102, ICC Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Model Colony, Pune 411 016, Maharashtra PAN : AAIFK3569J Applicant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeals at the instance of Revenue relating to two different assessee’s namely Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation for A.Y. 2012-13 Assessee by : Shri V.L. Jain Revenue by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 12.11.2025 Date of pronouncement : 14.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 2 are directed against the separate orders dated 26.11.2024 of ld.CIT(A), Pune-12 passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) arising out of respective Assessment Orders dated 30.12.2016 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act. 2. Since it is confirmed by both the sides that the issues raised in the instant appeals are common and the assessee’s relate to the same group, therefore there appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 3. We first proceed to deal with IT(SS) A No.1/PUN/2025 in the case of Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing appeal of the assessee holding that incriminating material found during search action of third party (Porwal-Agarwal-Muth-Karia-B.U. Bhandari Group) cannot be used in the case of the assessee, without appreciating the facts that incriminating documents seized during search action in the case of said third party were available with the A.O during the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act, which clearly established that assessee had given cash loan of Rs.9,75,00,000/- from unexplained sources and earned undisclosed interest income of Rs.33,50,000/-. 2) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of land dealing and share trading and is part of Kohinoor Group which was searched u/s.132 of the Act on 18.02.2015. For the year under appeal, i.e. A.Y. 2012-13, original return of income was filed on 28.09.2012 declaring income of ₹1,28,71,834 and the same was selected for regular scrutiny. Assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 3 was passed on 16.02.2015 accepting the returned income at ₹1,28,71,834. Subsequent to the search, notice u/s.153A of the Act was issued on 14.09.2015 and in response the assessee stated that the return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act on 28.09.2012 may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act. Thereafter, ld. Assessing Officer issued valid notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer gave reference to search conducted u/s.132 of the Act in case of Porwal-Agarwal-Mutha-Karia-B.U. Bhandari Group which was searched on 26.02.2014 followed by survey action u/s.133A of the Act on different business concerns. In the search proceedings carried out on 26.02.2014, certain incriminating material was seized from the office premises of Acero Steel and Electricals, Proprietor Mr. Bhavesh Agarwal in form of two diaries, Bundle No.4 and 5. Based on such seized material as well as statement of Mr. Vijesh Agarwal who is father of Mr. Bhavesh Agarwal recorded u/s.131 of the Act on 04.03.2014 who stated that they are acting as brokers for circulation of unaccounted money of various persons wherein the amounts are received in cash or cheque directly from various individuals/business groups and are given to those who require the liquid funds. Based on these statements, ld. Assessing Officer noted that Mr. Vijesh Agarwal is working as a broker between cash rich and cash deficient parties and used to get brokerage on the funds transacted. Further, in the seized material found during the course of search and survey action in the case of Porwal-Agarwal-Mutha-Karia-B.U. Bhandari Group a note book was found having the name in abbreviated form Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 4 and Mr. Bhavesh Agarwal and Mr. Vijesh Agarwal gave details of various persons who have transacted through them. In these details, appeared the name of the present assessee - Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal as well as the partnerdhip firm Kohinoor Developers in which the assessee Krishankumar Kishorilal Goyal is a 40% partner. The assessee is also the Managing Director of Cosmos Cooperative Bank. In the seized diaries under the name of Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal there were cash transactions in cash amounting to ₹9.75 crore which are alleged to be given as loan to various persons and for reference the chart depicting these details appearing in the assessment order in para 4.5 is reproduced below : Sr. No. Date Payer Payee Amount Repeated 1 03.09.2011 K. Goyal Bharat Shah 50 03.10.2011 K. Goyal Bharat Shah 50 03.11.2011 K. Goyal Bharat Shah 50 2 09.09.2011 K. Goyal Yogesh Karia 50 09.10.2011 K. Goyal 50 09.11.2011 K. Goyal 50 09.12.2011 K. Goyal 50 09.01.2012 K. Goyal 50 3 05.10.2011 (for 1 month) K. Goyal BCP 300 4 24.10.2011 K. Goyal BCP 250 24.11.2011 K. Goyal BCP 250 5 25.10.2011 K. Goyal BCP 150 25.11.2011 K. Goyal BCP 150 6 31.10.2011 (for 1 month) K. Goyal B.U. Bhandari 175 Total 975 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 5 5. Thereafter, ld. Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee on 24.11.2016 to explain the transactions appearing in the seized material referred above to which reply was filed on 16.12.2016 and the assessee denied to have entered into any such transactions. Another show cause notice was issued on 19.12.2016 in which ld. Assessing Officer has confronted the assessee that you have given the interpretation of the entries in the diaries of Mr. Vijesh Agarwal but when you have not entered into any such transactions how you claimed that transactions entered are repeated after some period of time. To this, assessee through his Authorised Representative again replied on 23.12.2016 stating that even if there are certain transactions through cheque carried out by the Group Concern Kohinoor Development Corporation but that does not mean that the cash transactions appearing in such seized material pertain to the assessee and without some concrete evidence to prove that cash loan as noted by Mr. Vijesh Agarwal are genuine no addition can be made in the hands of assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with the Affidavit filed by Mr. Vijesh Agarwal confirming the cash and cheque transactions entered into with the assessee and other group concerns to which again reply was filed on 28.12.2016 stating that no adverse inference could be drawn because presumption u/s.132(4A) of the Act does not apply in the case of assessee. 6. Ld. Assessing Officer after considering the submissions filed by the assessee has observed that the assessee has denied to have entered into any transaction with Mr. Vijesh Agarwal. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 6 Further in the seized diaries referred (supra), the entries having letter that denotes the cash entries and rest are non cash entries. Ld. Assessing Officer also referred to the transactions referred in the seized diaries entered into by Kohinoor Development Corporation which was carried out through banking channel from the account held by Kohinoor Development Corporation in Axis Bank and Cosmos Cooperative Bank. Ld. Assessing Officer also observed that assessee Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal is 40% partner of Kohinoor Development Corporation and also Managing Director of Cosmos Cooperative Bank. Ld. Assessing Officer on due consideration of the cheque transactions appearing in the seized diaries which have been entered between Kohinoor Development Corporation and the payee namely B.U. Bhandari came to a conclusion that seized diaries are not dumb documents and all the transactions referred therein are correct transactions and therefore those transactions which are carried out in cash are unaccounted transactions and that the assessee has advanced cash loan of ₹9.75 crore to various persons namely Mr. Bharat Shah, Mr. Yogesh Karia, BCP and B.U. Bhandari and that such cash loans are from the undisclosed income earned by the assessee during the year. Further placing reliance on various judgments made addition of ₹9.75 crore and relevant observation of the Assessing Officer in paras 5 to 7 reads as follows : “5. In nutshell, matching of cheque/RTGS entries in the diaries; corroboration of the same by the assessee; Mr. Vijesh Agarwal’s submissions, affidavit and additional disclosure of commission (brokerage) income on the basis of the diaries; the Assessee’s own Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 7 interpretation of the entries in the diaries which coincides with the cheque/RTGS entries and Mr. Vijesh Agarwal's interpretation; and Mr. Ghanshyam Sukhwani's acceptance of the cash loans mentioned in the diaries before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, Mumbai, clearly prove that the entries are genuine. 6. Various judicial pronouncements talk about how to ascertain the tax liability on basis of particular transactions maintained on any document. The judicial authorities have given important to material available on record, surrounding circumstances, human conduct, and preponderance of probability and nature of incriminating information/evidence. Some of the judicial decisions are given below: i. Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801 ii. Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 44 ITR 362 iii. Mriganka Mohan Sur Vs. CIT (Cal) 120 ITR 529 iv. Hersh V. Chadha L/H of Late W.N. Chadha Vs DDIT (Int. Tax) (ITAT, Del) 135 TTJ 513. 6.1 We will apply all these tests in the case of the assessee. 6.1.1 Surrounding circumstances There are many parties alongside the assessee, who have provided the cash loans to different cash deficit parties. One of such parties in the diaries, Mr. Ghanshyam Sukhwani has accepted the cash loans before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, Additional Bench-1, Mumbai. 6.1.2 Human conduct Mr. Vijesh Agarwal's meticulous maintenance of diaries, disclosure of additional brokerage in the assessment, the assessee's acquaintance with Mr. Vijesh Agarwal, and the assessee's interpretation of the diaries clearly establish an organic connection in the transactions. Without knowing the transactions, the assessee would not have given the interpretation of the diaries on the same lines of Mr. Vijesh Agarwal. He was fully aware of the diaries. Otherwise, he would not have interpreted the diaries. Mr. Vijesh Agarwal has filed an affidavit during his assessment proceedings for assessment year concerned (A.Y. 2012-13) wherein he has re-iterated all the issues stated in his statement as mentioned in preceding paragraphs. 6.1.3 Nature of incriminating evidence As said earlier, the diaries have cash as well as non cash entries. The non cash entries are matching with bank accounts. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 8 Thus, the matching of the non cash transactions of the diaries in case of M/s. Kohinorr Development Corporation (in which the assessee is a key person) and other persons in the diaries with their books of accounts confirms the authenticity of the diaries and strengthens the evidentiary value of diaries. 7. The diaries were found during the surprised search/survey action. The entries in the diaries were made for his own brokerage income which he has offered as an additional income during the assessment proceedings. Cash entries are appearing along with cheque entries which are normally seen in case of brokers. These two types of entries should be read as organic whole. Add to this, despite not accepting the loans, the assessee has provided the nature of cash entries on basis of repetition pattern. Thus, the assessee is fully aware of the transactions. 8. In view of the above facts and legal position, I hereby add Rs. 9.75 crore as an income of the assessee from undisclosed sources for the assessment year. Addition of Rs. 9,75,00,000/-.” 7. Apart from making the addition of ₹9.75 crore for undisclosed income, ld. Assessing Officer also made the addition for the unaccounted interest income of ₹33,50,000 which the assessee would have earned as interest on the alleged loans given by him. Income assessed at ₹11,37,21,830. 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) raising various grounds on merits of the case and also raised following additional ground of appeal : “1. The learned AO erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 9,75,00,000/- on account of alleged cash loans and of Rs. 33,50,000/- on account of interest income without any incriminating material found in the course of search relating to such additions.” 9. In the appeal proceedings before ld.CIT(A) assessee on the additional ground of appeal placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT Vs.Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. – CA No.6580/2021 dated 24.04.2023 contended that A.Y. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 9 2012-13 being completed and unabated assessment year and there being no incriminating material found during the course of search conducted on the assessee, no addition could have been made in the hands of assessee. Ld.CIT(A) has only dealt with this additional ground and has not dealt with merits of the case and applying the ratio laid down in the case of PCIT Vs.Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra) has decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee observing as follows : “Findings and Decision of the Appellate Authority: 5.5 I have considered the assessment order, submissions of the appellant, remand report submitted by the AO, rejoinder submitted by the appellant and the facts of the case. The main contention of the appellant is that the entire addition in the search assessment was based on the incriminating material found in a different search carried out on 26/02/2014 and not the search in the appellant's case on 18/02/2015. From the assessment order it is seen that the addition of Rs. 9,75,00,000/- and Rs. 33,50,000/- was made on the basis of the papers seized from Shri Vijesh Agrawal. Search u/s 132 was carried out on Shri Vijesh Agrawal as part search on Porwal- Agarwal-Mutha-Karia-B.U.Bhandari Group of cases on 26/02/2014. In the case of the appellant, search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 18/02/2015. The additions made in the search assessment are not based on any incriminating material found in the search in the case of the appellant on 18/02/2015. 5.6 It is also seen that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 16/02/2015 in the case of the appellant. Therefore, as on the date of search on 18/02/2015, no assessment was pending. Hence, this is a case of completed/unabated assessment. 5.7 Further, on verification of remand report in para 3 & 4, it is seen that the Ld. AO has accepted that the entire additions were made on the basis of certain incriminating documents/diaries found and seized during the course of search action conducted on 26/02/2014 on Porwal-Agarwal-Mutha-Karia-B.U.Bhandari Group of cases. 5.8 In the present case, as discussed above, since no assessment for the year under consideration was pending on the date of search, it is a case of unabated/completed assessment. The main contention of the appellant is that the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act is bad in law, since no addition can be made for unabated years, Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 10 without existence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. It is an undisputed fact that additions on account of undisclosed income and interest have been made on the basis of Incriminating material found in another search conducted on 26/02/2014 in Porwal-Agarwal-Mutha-Karia-B.U.Bhandari Group of cases. No additions have been made on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search in the case of the appellant which was conducted on 18/02/2015. 5.9 The appellant has also relied on the recent decision of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (Supreme Court), wherein it is held that in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under. \"14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 11 The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs\" Therefore, in view of the legal position discussed above, since this is a case of unabated assessment, no addition in the order u/s 153A is permissible in the absence of incriminating material found in the course of search. In view of these facts and considering the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), which is squarely applicable on this issue, the AO cannot make any addition in absence of any incriminating material found in the course of search. Further, it is also undisputed that the additions under consideration made by the Ld. AO on account of undisclosed income of Rs. 9.75 Crs and on account of interest income of Rs. 33,50,000/- were not based on any material or finding of the search action, which was conducted on 18/02/2015. Since it is a case of unabated assessment, the action of the Ld. AO of making this addition in absence of any incriminating material or finding due to the search action in the case of the appellant is found to be not correct in view of the legal position at this stage, as discussed above. Therefore, the Ld. AO has wrongly made this addition on account of undisclosed income of Rs. 9.75 Crs and on account of interest income of Rs. 33,50,000/-. The AO is directed to delete the same. Therefore, the additional ground no. 1 raised by the appellant is hereby allowed. 5.10 Further, as the case of the appellant for the AY 2012-13 is covered under para 14(iv) of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the Assessing Officer is free to take any action in pursuance to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited in para 14(iv) and also as per Instruction No.1 of 2023 of the CBDT. 5.11 Since the quantum relief has been granted in respect of additional ground no. 1 of the appeal, the other related grounds No. 1 to 4 do not require separate adjudication. They are considered dismissed for statistical purposes.” 10. Aggrieved Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal whereas the assessee has neither filed cross appeal nor has filed any Cross Objection against the order of ld.CIT(A) and has not raised any ground on the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer based on the seized material, i.e. diaries Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 12 referred in the assessment order which suggests that assessee has no grievance with the merits of the case. 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued referring to the following written submissions : “3. Submission: 3.1. The Ld. CIT(A) has misinterpreted the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. has laid down the law regarding the scope of assessment under section 153A of the Act in the case of search, particularly for completed/ unabated assessments. The court held that in absence of incriminating material found during the search, the assessing officer does not get jurisdiction under section 153A to reassess total income for completed assessments. The relevant extract of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is reproduced as below. The relevant lines are highlighted. “9. While considering the issue involved, one has to consider the object and purpose of insertion of Section 153A in the Act, 1961 and when there shall be a block assessment under Section 153A of the Act, 1961. 9.1 That prior to insertion of Section 153A in the statute, the relevant provision for block assessment was under Section 158BA of the Act, 1961. The erstwhile scheme of block assessment under Section 158BA envisaged assessment of ‘undisclosed income’ for two reasons, firstly that there were two parallel assessments envisaged under the erstwhile regime, i.e., (i) block assessment under section 158BA to assess the ‘undisclosed income’ and (ii) regular assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act to make assessment qua income other than undisclosed income. Secondly, that the ‘undisclosed income’ was chargeable to tax at a special rate of 60% under section 113 whereas income other than ‘undisclosed income’ was required to be assessed under regular assessment procedure and was taxable at normal rate. Therefore, section 153A came to be inserted and brought on the statute. Under Section 153A regime, the intention of the legislation was to do away with the scheme of two parallel assessments and tax the ‘undisclosed’ income too at the normal rate of tax as against any special rate. Thus, after introduction of Section 153A and in case of search, there shall be block assessment for six years. Search assessments/block assessments under Section 153A are triggered by conducting of a valid search under Section 132 of the Act, 1961. The very purpose of search, which is a prerequisite/trigger for invoking the provisions of sections Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 13 153A/153C is detection of undisclosed income by undertaking extraordinary power of search and seizure, i.e., the income which cannot be detected in ordinary course of regular assessment. Thus, the foundation for making search assessments under Sections 153A/153C can be said to be the existence of incriminating material showing undisclosed income detected as a result of search. 10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident that once search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the AO to issue notice under Section 153 of the Act to the person, requiring him to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made and assess or reassess the same. Section 153A of the Act reads as under: …………… ………….. 11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A, the assessment or re- assessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. As per sub-section (2) of Section 153A, if any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub- section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt ofthe order of such annulment by the Commissioner. Therefore, the intention of the legislation seems to be that in case of search only the pending assessment/reassessment proceedings shall abate and the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ for the entire six years period/block assessment period. The intention does not seem to be to re-open the completed/unabated assessments, unless any incriminating material is found with respect to concerned assessment year falling within last six years preceding the search. Therefore, on true interpretation of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 14 and during the search any incriminating material is found, even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the AO would have the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ taking into consideration the incriminating material collected during the search and other material which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as the undisclosed income. However, in case during the search no incriminating material is found, in case of completed/unabated assessment, the only remedy available to the Revenue would be to initiate the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannot be left with no remedy. Therefore, even in case of block assessment under section 153A and in case of unabated/completed assessment and in case no incriminating material is found during the search, the power of the Revenue to have the reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Act has to be saved, otherwise the Revenue would be left without remedy. 12. If the submission on behalf of the Revenue that in case of search even where no incriminating material is found during the course of search, even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the AO can assess or reassess the income/total income taking into consideration the other material is accepted, in that case, there will be two assessment orders, which shall not be permissible under the law. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the assessment under Section 153A of the Act islinked with the search and requisition under Sections 132 and 132A of the Act. The object of Section 153A is to bring under tax the undisclosed income which is found during the course of search or pursuant to search or requisition. Therefore, only in a case where the undisclosed income is found on the basis of incriminating material, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf of the Revenue is accepted, in that case, second proviso to section 153A and sub- section (2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law.” 3.2. In para 11 and 12 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that the foundation of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act is the existence of incriminating material found during the search. The Court further ruled that in the absence of such material, Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 15 completed assessments cannot be reopened under section 153A of the Act and the Revenue’s remedy lies under sections 147/148, subject to their conditions. 3.3. However, the issue in the present case is unique. The search conducted on the Porwal- Agarwal- Mutha- Karia- Bhandari Group on 26.02.2014 led to the discovery of incriminating material pertaining to the appellant group, clearly indicating undisclosed income in AY 2012-13. Before satisfaction could be recorded and material would be transferred under section 153C of the Act by the AO of the searched person, a search was conducted on the appellant group on 18.02.2015. These evidences gathered during the search action on the Porwal- Agarwal- Mutha- Karia- Bhandari Group on 26.02.2014 led to the initiation of search action in the case of the appellant group i.e. Kohinoor Group. However, during this second search, no fresh incriminating material was found for AY 2012-13, since the relevant evidence had already been unearthed from the search action on the Porwal- Agarwal- Mutha- Karia- Bhandari Group on 26.02.2014.Rather, it can be safely concluded that the search action in the case of the appellant group was extension of search action on the Porwal- Agarwal- Mutha- Karia- Bhandari Group. 3.4. The Ld. CIT(A), while relying on Abhisar Buildwell (supra), held that since no incriminating material was found during the search on appellant group, the assessment under section 153A of the Act could not proceed for AY under consideration, being a completed assessment year. With respect, such interpretation is too literal and mechanical, and fails to consider the larger context of the judgment and the statutory framework. 3.5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (supra) never held that incriminating material must necessarily emanate from the same search conducted on the assessee. Rather, the Court was interpreting the pre-condition for invoking section 153A of the Act in case of completed assessments that some incriminating material must exist, linking to the concerned assessment year. 3.6. If one goes through various decisions rendered in the context of search assessments, it shall be observed that the word 'incriminating material' has been used very often, but the point here is that what is the meaning of 'incriminating material' or in other words what meaning can be attributed to 'incriminating material', as the same is the main bone of contention while framing the search assessment order u/s 153A of the Act, and the same certainly is not defined under the Act. Therefore, it is imperative to understand the meaning of the word 'incriminating material'.Practically stating it can be stated that the 'incriminating material' can be in any form such as evidence in the nature of the following: (a) a document, content of any document; Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 16 (b) an entry in books of account; (c) an asset; (d) a statement given on oath; (e) absence of any fact claimed earlier but coming to notice during search; (f) absence of books being found during search; (g) absence of the office/business premises as claimed during returns filed or any other documents; (h) any of the documents/material seized from a different person and not from the assessee, etc. In short, any fact/evidence which could suggest that the documents/transactions claimed or submitted in any earlier proceedings were not genuine, being only a device/make belief based on non-existent facts or suppressed/misrepresented facts, fulfilling the ingredients of undisclosed income, would constitute an 'incriminating material' sufficient to make assessment for the purposes of the Act. A mere statement u/s 132(4) of the Act is an evidence for making an assessment as held by Apex Court in B. Kishore Kumar v. Dy. CIT [2015] 62 taxmann.com 215/234 Taxman 771 and even a statement u/s 132(4) of the Act shall also constitute incriminating material to dislodge any earlier finding for the purpose of making an assessment u/s 153A of the Act. The aforesaid list is subjective and shall change, in the nature of each case. Therefore, it is highly debatable as to what is an incriminating document/material qua the affairs of the appellant. In the instant case, the documents incriminating in nature were found in the course of the search proceedings conducted by the Department albeit in another case but one which led to the search in the appellant’s case. The said incriminating documents were directly connected to the affairs of the appellant but the income therefrom had not been disclosed or considered in the assessment that was completed because the same were not available at that point in time. One would be failing in duty, if the same were not to be used in the assessment of the assessee u/s 153A of the Act. 3.7. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that permitting two separate assessments (one under section 153A of the Act and another under section 147/153C of the Act) for the same assessment year and assessee would lead to impermissible duplication of proceedings, which is prohibited under law (para 12 of the judgment). If the Department were to ignore the second search on appellant and proceed under section 147/153C of the Act on the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 17 basis of search on the Porwal- Agarwal- Mutha- Karia- Bhandari Group, the result would be two assessment proceedings for the same assessment year — one under section 147/153C of the Act and another under 153A of the Act— which is what Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (supra) warned against. 3.8. Therefore, in the factual context of the present case, the only legally tenable course for the Revenue was to utilize the incriminating material found during the earlier search on the Porwal- Agarwal- Mutha- Karia- Bhandari Groupwhile making the assessment under section 153A of the Act on the appellant group, triggered by the subsequent search. This is in line with the object of section 153A of the Act i.e. to assess \"total income\" in light of undisclosed income unearthed during search, regardless of whether the material originated in the same or another connected search. 3.9. Any interpretation that excludes relevant incriminating material merely because it was found in a different search (even when concerning the same assessee) would defeat the purpose of the legislation and create artificial hurdles in effective investigation and assessment of undisclosed income and leave the Revenue remediless. 3.10. In conclusion, the judgment of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) must be read contextually and harmoniously with the scheme of sections 153A and 147/153C of the Act. It does not prohibit reliance on incriminating material found in a connected or earlier search as long as the material relates to the assessee and the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition solely on the ground that no incriminating material was found during the search on appellant group, ignoring the fact that the same already existed from the earlier search on the Porwal- Agarwal- Mutha- Karia- Bhandari Group. 3.11. Even otherwise, once a valid search has been conducted on the appellant group, section 147/153C of the Act ceases to apply and the assessment must proceed under section 153A of the Act. To hold otherwise would again lead to two simultaneous assessments (one under 153A and one under 147/153C of the Act) — a result which is impermissible in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in AbhisarBuildwell (supra). In view of the above discussion, it is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside with direction to decide the appeal on merit.” Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 18 12. Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand firstly stated that Revenue has not raised any specific ground challenging the finding of ld.CIT(A) deciding the legal issue in favour of the assessee. He also submitted that even if there had been a seized material found during the course of search in case of some other assessee, ld. Assessing Officer ought to have issued notice u/s.153C of the Act. He also referred that during the course of search in the case of assessee no incriminating material pertains to A.Y. 2012-13 was unearthed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is merely based on the seized material found in the case of some other person and therefore finding of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be confirmed. 13. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed the rebuttal to the written submissions filed by ld. DR and the contents of which reads as follows : “The learned DR's written submissions raises the following issues: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), while relying on Abhisar Buildwell (supra), held that since no incriminating material was found during the search on appellant group, the assessment under section 153A of the Act could not proceed for AY under consideration, being a completed assessment year. With respect, such interpretation is too literal and mechanical, and fails to consider the larger context of the judgment and the statutory framework. In response, attention is invited to Para 11 of the decision in Abhisaar, which reads as under: \"However, in case during the search no incriminating material is found, in case of completed/unabated assessment, the only remedy available to the Revenue would be to initiate the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannot be left with no remedy. Therefore, even in case of block assessment under section 153A and in case of unabated/completed assessment and in case no incriminating Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 19 material is found during the search, the power of the Revenue to have the reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Act has to be saved, otherwise the Revenue would be left without remedy\". The aforesaid clearly revels that it is not the interpretation of the CITA but a specific proposition of the Hon SC. 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (supra) never held that incriminating material must necessarily emanate from the same search conducted on the assessee. Rather, the Court was interpreting the pre-condition for invoking section 153A of the Act in case of completed assessments that some incriminating material must exist, linking to the concerned assessment year. In response, attention is invited to Para 11 of the decision in Abhisaar which reads as under: \"The intention does not seem to be to reopen the completed/unabated assessments, unless any incriminating material is found with respect to concerned assessment year falling within last six years preceding the search\". Further attention is invited to Para 12 of the decision in Abhisaar which reads as under: \"The object of Section 153A is to bring under tax the undisclosed income which is found during the course of search or pursuant to search or requisition. Therefore, only in a case where the undisclosed income is found on the basis of incriminating material, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment.\" Further attention is invited to Para 15.1 of the decision in Abhisaar which reads as under: \"In view of the discussion hereinabove, once during search undisclosed income is found on unearthing the incriminating material during the search, the AO would assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income even in case of completed/unabated assessments\". The aforesaid extracts clearly establish the necessity of incriminating material from the same search. 3. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that permitting two separate assessments (one under section 153A of the Act and another under section 147/153C of the Act) for the same assessment year and assessee would lead to impermissible duplication of proceedings, which is prohibited under law (para 12 of Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 20 the judgment). If the Department were to ignore the second search on appellant and proceed under section 147/153C of the Act on the basis of search on the Porwal- Agarwal-Mutha- Karia-Bhandari Group, the result would be two assessment proceedings for the same assessment year- one under section 147/153C of the Act and another under 153A of the Act- which is what Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (supra) warned against. In response, attention is invited to Para 12 of the decision in Abhisaar which reads as under and clearly shows the context of the observations: \"If the submission on behalf of the Revenue that in case of search even where no incriminating material is found during the course of search, even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the AO can assess or reassess the income/total income taking into consideration the other material is accepted, in that case, there will be two assessment orders, which shall not be permissible under the law.\" The aforesaid clearly reveals that the submission of the learned DR is out of context. 4. Any interpretation that excludes relevant incriminating material merely because it was found in a different search (even when concerning the same assessee) would defeat the purpose of the legislation and create artificial hurdles in effective investigation and assessment of undisclosed income and leave the Revenue remediless. This is a view of the learned DR which does not find resonance in the judgement of the Hon Apex Court in Abhisaar. 5. It does not prohibit reliance on incriminating material found in a connected or earlier search as long as the material relates to the assessee and the relevant assessment year. This is again a view of the learned DR which does not find resonance in the judgement of the Hon Apex Court in Abhisaar. Lastly, we have to submit that relying on the aforesaid judgement of the Hon Apex Court, the Hon Pune Bench in Sandeep B. Jhaveri (ITA No. 1185/Pun/2023 dated 14.08.2024) and in Hetal R. Mehta (ITA No. 1727/Pun/2024 dated 13.05.2025) held in favour of the assessee. We therefore pray before Your Honours that the appeal of the Department be dismissed. 13.1 Ld. AR has also filed additional written submissions which read as follows : Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 21 “ADDITIONAL WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS (Further to the written submissions filed earlier as a response to the written submissions made by the Department and further to the last hearing held on 09.10.2025 when the appeal was fixed for clarifications and the statement recorded u/s 132(4) was called for by the Hon. Bench and matter re-fixed as a Part Heard matter) MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOURS: 1. (a) It is not the Department's case that there is incriminating material found in the course of search of the Respondent in the present appeal at any stage i.e. either in assessment proceedings, or before the CITA or the Hon Tribunal. (b) In fact, there is a clear admission before CITA (in the Remand Report) as also before the Hon ITAT (in the Departmental written submissions) by the Department that there is no incriminating material found in the course of search of the Respondent. (c) Further, even in the only ground of appeal before the Hon ITAT, the Department refers to the use of incriminating material found in the course of search of a third party (which search was carried out on 26.02.2014). (d) The only ground of appeal does not even have a whisper of any incriminating material found in the course of search. 2. (a)There is not an iota of reference to any incriminating material found in the course of the search of the Respondent in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. (b) The only addition made in the assessment order is based on third party statement and third party seized material. (c) The assessment is completed u/s 153A and not 153C. The AO was free to proceed u/s 153C or u/s 148 by following the procedure which he has failed to do. (d) No opportunity of cross examination of the third party has been provided despite multiple requests and hence even that data cannot be used against the appellant. (e) There is a categorical denial by the appellant of any cash transactions as alleged by the Department. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 22 14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and carefully gone through the judgments referred and relied on by both the sides. The grievance of the Revenue is against the finding of ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.9.75 crore for the addition made for income from undisclosed sources and also deleting the addition for interest on account of unaccounted income at ₹33.50 lakh earned on the cash loans advanced by the assessee to various parties. We note that ld.CIT(A) has deleted the impugned additions by observing that since the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 is completed and unabated assessment year, the addition could have been made only based on the incriminating material found during the course of search conducted on the assessee and such seized material referred by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order belongs to some other assessee and were not found during the course of search conducted at the assessee’s premises and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT Vs.Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable and therefore no addition deserves to be made. 15. We note that the Assessing Officer while examining the return of the assessee in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act also made reference to the seized material found during the course of search conducted on 26.02.2014 in the case of Porwal-Agarwal-Mutha-Karia-B.U. Bhandari Group, statement of Mr. Vijesh Agarwal who is the father of Mr. Bhavesh Agarwal who runs sole proprietary concern Acero Steel and Electricals and also made reference to two diaries Bundle No.4 and 5 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 23 found during the course of search and survey action from Mr. Bhavesh Agarwal and noticed that such diaries contains names of various persons who gave cash loans to such persons who need the loans and Mr. Bhavesh Agarwal/Mr. Vijesh Agarwal worked as brokers and in such diaries details of various transactions entered into cash as well cheque mode have been referred. A search was also conducted on the assessee Group (Kohinoor Group) on 18.02.2015, i.e. just two days after the passing of the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13. During the course of search, various incriminating material were found for each assessment year and the assessee has also made huge disclosures for unaccounted income earned during certain assessment years. Presently, A.Y. 2012-13 is in appeal before this Tribunal in the case of assessee as well as the partnership firm Kohinoor Development Corporation in which the assessee is 40% partner. Ld. AO based on the contents of the diaries which included the transactions through cheque between the Kohinoor Development Corporation and other parties referred in the seized diaries concluded that the transactions entered into these diaries are correct transactions and not rough jottings and the cash entries included the cash loan given under the name of the assessee to other persons namely Mr. Bharat Shah, BCP, B.U. Bhandari, Yogesh Karia. 16. Now before us, the assessee is not in appeal and ld.CIT(A) has only allowed the legal issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground solely on the ground that in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search the impugned addition deserves to be deleted. Since the assessee Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 24 has not filed any cross appeal/cross objection it remains an undisputed fact that the assessee is not having any grievance with the quantum of addition made by the Assessing Officer based on the entries appearing in the seized diaries. The arguments of ld. Counsel for the assessee are two fold firstly that the ratio of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case PCIT Vs.Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra) applies on the facts of the instant case and secondly that even if there is any seized material belonging or pertaining to the assessee found during the course of search action in case of some other assessee, then the proper course of action should have been to initiate the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act. However, since this is not the appeal of the assessee therefore the second argument of ld. Counsel for the assessee that ld. AO should have initiated proceedings u/s.153C and not u/s.153A has no ground and the same is therefore held to be infructuous. 17. Now we are seized with the issue that whether the impugned addition is based on any incriminating material found during the course of search conducted on 18.02.2025 in the case of assessee. We observe that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings has referred to the seized material found during the course of search in the case of Porwal-Agarwal-Mutha-Karia-B.U. Bhandari Group conducted on 26.02.2014 as well as the statement of Mr. Vijesh Agarwal who is the key person and controlling business of his son Mr. Bhavesh Agarwal, proprietor of Acero Steel and Electricals. During the course of search conducted on the assessee, Mr. Rajesh Krishnakumar Goyal son of Krishnakumar Kishorilal Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 25 Goyal has recorded the statement u/s.132(4) of the Act and in this statement he has accepted to have earned unaccounted income and have also offered them to tax. For instance, in reply to Question No.5 it is accepted that cash of ₹64,82,000 is not recorded in the books of account and the same is offered as additional income for F.Y. 2014-15. In reply to Question Nos. 10 and 11, it is stated that “I have not paid tax of Rs.3,52,40,000/- and I shall disclose total profit of Rs.17.72 crore on sale of land for F.Y. 2014-15”. In the similar manner, Mr. Rajesh Krishnakumar Goyal in reply to various questions asked in the statement recorded u/s.132(4) has accepted to have earned unaccounted income and offered them as income during the respective assessment years. These observations about the undisclosed income surrendered by the assessee for the other assessment years goes to indicate that the assessee is used to be earning income from undisclosed sources and is not offering them to tax in the regular return of income and only because the search was conducted and certain incriminating material were found, the assessee has accepted to have offered them to income during the course of search. This further strengthens the fact that assessee is in the habit of earning unaccounted income. 18. Now so far as the issue consideration is concerned, we note that during the course of recording statement of Mr. Rajesh Krishnakumar Goyal certain questions were asked about the transactions of the assessee with Mr. Vijesh Agarwal and Mr. Bhavesh Agarwal and also reference was made to seized material found during the course of search conducted on Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 26 Porwal-Agarwal-Mutha-Karia-B.U.Bhandari Group on 26.02.2014. For the sake of reference, question Nos. 19 to 24 along with answers given by Mr. Rajesh K. Goyal on behalf of the assessee are reproduced below : “Q.19. Do you know Shri Vijesh Agrawal alias Raju Agarwal or Shri Bhavesh Agarwal? Ans. Yes I know him. Q.20. Please explain the nature of transactions between you and shri raju Agrawal? Ans: I do not have any transaction with Shri Raju Agrawal. Q.21. Do you Know shri. YogeshPorwal or Shri Bhomraj Porwal? Ans: No I do not know Shri Yogesh Porwal or Shri Bhomraj Porwal. Q.22: A search action u/s 132 of the IT Act was carried on in the case of Mutha Porwal- Bhandari group of cases by the Investigation Directorate, Pune. In the search action, the residence of Shri Vijesh Agarwal, business premises of his son Shri. Bhavesh Agarwal, & residence of Yogesh Porwal were covered and certain documents were seized /impounded. The seized /impounded documents contained cash loans exchanged between various builders /businessman in pune through the above said people. It was found that Shri. Vijesh Agarwal, his son Bhavesh Agarwal and Shri Yogesh Agarwal were commission agents, who mediated between certain builders in pune who had unaccounted cash and people who required cash. The seized / Impounded documents were confronted to them and their statements were recorded under oath. They have stated they provide accommodation entries for cash, le, they provide cash against cheque deposited with them. In this process, they earned small percentage of commission. Shri Vijesh Agarwal in his statement has identified the names of the persons who have given cash loans from his handwritten notebook seized/impounded from his premises. He has identified \"K. Goyal Krishnakumar Goyal. He has also identified \"Kohinoor\" as Kohinoor Developers. He has also clarified that the names of lender/borrower are written in the same fashion throughout and the denomination are in Rs Lacs. Further the letter \"c\" against certain amount has been clarified as cash amount. Based on the statements given by Shri Vijesh allas Raju Agarwal the total cash loans given by Shri KrishnakumarGoyal is Rs. 5,70,00,000/- during financial year 2012-13. Further it was also found that Kohinoor Group has taken cash loans against deposit of cheque of Rs. 3 Crores Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 27 on 15/10/2011 with Shri Yogesh Porwal. Please go through the seized / impounded documents and the statement given by Shri Raju Agarwal and comment. Ans: The seized/impounded documents and the statements given by Shri Vijesh alias Raju Agarwal have been examined by Shri Krishnakumar Goyal. It is clarified that Shri Krishnakumar Goyal had never had any transaction with Shri Bhavesh Agarwal or Raju Agarwal or Yogesh Porwal. Q.23. There are certain cheque transactions written against the name of Shri K. Goyal by Shri Vijesh Agarwal. Please clarify whether you deny the cheques transactions with Shri VijeshAgarwal ? Ans: Shri KrishnakumarGoyal does not have any cheque transactions with Shri Vijesh Agarwal. Q.24 Clarify whether any concern in the Kohinoor Group had transactions with Shri Bhavesh Agarwal or Raju Agarwal or YogeshPorwal. Ans: No. None of the concern in the Kohinoor Group had any transaction with Shri Bhavesh Agarwal or Raju Agarwal or YogeshPorwal.” 19. Now on going through the replies given by the assessee’s son Mr. Rajesh Krishnakumar Goyal on behalf of his father Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal, we observe that when the seized material found in the case of Porwal-Agarwal-Mutha- Karia-B.U. Bhandari Group was confronted during the course of search carried out in the case of assessee it has been stated that Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal never had any transaction with Mr. Bhavesh Agarwal and Mr. Yogesh Karia. However, in the seized material there is reference of transactions entered into through cheque as well as cash and cheques transactions have been carried out through banking account of Kohinoor Development Corporation in which the assessee is 40% partner which in itself clearly proves that transactions appearing in the seized diaries have been carried out between the assessee and Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 28 other concerns through broker Mr. Bhavesh Agarwal. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings carried out u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act in the case of Kohinoor Development Corporation when the very same seized material was confronted to the assessee which contain the transactions through cheque issued by Kohinoor Development Corporation the assessee, i.e. Kohinoor Development Corporation in its reply dated 16.12.2016 filed through Authorised Representative has accepted to have carried out such transactions and Point No.1, 2 and 3 of the reply confirms this fact. For the sake of convenience, the same is reproduced below : “1. In this case you have asked us for our submission in respect of the notings in the diaries of Shri. Vijesh B. Agarwal and his statement that the notings reflect the cheque loans given by Kohinoor. The summary of the notings / entries of the loans in the diaries are enclosed for your ready reference. 2. The entry at Sr.No.1 & 2 of Rs. 3 crores and Rs. 7 crores pertain to the business advance given by my assessee by cheque to B.U.Bhandari Motors Pvt Ltd on 25.04.2011 and 03.08.2011. My assessee has received interest @ 12 p.a. on these advances which has been duly accounted for in the books of accounts and offered to tax. Relevant extract of B.U.Bhandari Motors Pvt Ltd as per the books of my assessee is enclosed for your ready reference. 3. The entry at Sr.No.5 of Rs. 10 crores pertain to the business advance given by my assessee by cheque to B.U.Bhandari Auto Links on 25.10.2011. My assessee has received interest @ 12 p.a. on this advance which has been duly accounted for in the books of accounts and offered to tax. Relevant extract of B.U.Bhandari Auto Links as per the books of my assessee is enclosed for your ready reference.” 20. Now these chronology of events, i.e. incriminating material found during the course of search at Porwal-Agarwal-Mutha- Karia-B.U. Bhandari Group and the very same seized material confronted to the assessee and during the course of search Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 29 carried out in its own case as well as Group case and during the course of search itself in the statement recorded u/s.132(4) specific questions have been asked by the search team to the assessee to explain such transactions to which the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings in case of himself has denied and thereafter during the course of assessment proceedings in case of Kohinoor Development Corporation has accepted the cheque transactions. All these aspects makes it clear that the cash transactions appearing in the seized material having reference of assessee as well as Kohinoor Development Corporation and the transactions which have been carried out by the assessee in cash are unaccounted cash/undisclosed income in the form of cash has been given on interest to various parties through the broker Mr. Bhavesh Agarwal. We have also discussed above that the assessee during the course of search has offered huge amount of undisclosed income to tax which shows the modus operandi of the assessee regularly earning unaccounted income but only because the assessee has been subjected to search, such unaccounted income has been offered to tax. 21. Now we turn back to the point of incriminating material found during the course of search. On due consideration of facts of the instant case, we are of the considered view that the seized material found during the course of search in the case of another assessee which is confronted to the present assessee during the course of search carried out in his own case and there being no plausible reply/explanation given by the assessee to such seized material, then such seized material Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 30 found during the course of search of other person partakes the character of incriminating material found during the course of search in the case of assessee. Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT Vs.Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra) is applicable in those cases where the assessment year in question are concluded/unabated assessment year and no incriminating material is found during the course of search and therefore the addition if any which should be made for such assessment years could only be based on incriminating material seized and in absence of any such seized material addition cannot be made for any other transactions appearing in the regular books of account/records maintained by the assessee which are not having any nexus to an incriminating material found during the course of search. 22. Since we have held in the case of assessee that there is incriminating material found during the course of search in the shape of seized material found in the case of search of another person and confronted to the assessee during the course of search itself and there being no plausible reply/explanation given for such incriminating material and the assessee having denied to have entered into any transactions mentioned in the seized material inspite of the fact that such seized material contain the transactions carried out through banking channel also which assessee has himself accepted during the course of assessment proceedings brings us to a conclusion that ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT Vs.Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra) will not be applicable on the facts of the instant case. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) grossly erred Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 31 in allowing the additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment. 23. We further find that the search conducted on the Porwal- Agarwal-Mutha-Karia-B.U. Bhandari Group led to the discovery of incriminating material pertaining to the assessee Group clearly indicating undisclosed income earned during A.Y. 2012- 13 and that Assessing Officer had option to initiate the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act but before taking any action u/s.1543C of the Act based on the material gathered during the course of search on 26.02.2014 in the case of Porwal-Agarwal- Mutha-Karia-B.U. Bhandari Group, seized material led to the initiation of search action in the case of assessee Group (Kohinoor Group) on 18.02.2015. Further since the incriminating material was already in possession of the search team found during the course of search conducted on 26.02.2014, the same were available with the search team on the date of conducting search of assessee Group on 18.02.2015. When the assessee failed to explain the cash transactions appearing in such seized material such seized material pertaining to the assessee has taken form of incriminating material available with the search team during the course of conducting search and thus very seized material were available with the Assessing Officer while carrying out the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act. Further even when the A.Y. 2012-13 was falling under the category of completed and unabated assessment year because the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) were concluded on 16.02.2015 but then as the Assessing Officer was having the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 32 incriminating material pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 found during the course of search in the case of assessee he has rightly proceeded to make the impugned addition for the undisclosed income appearing in such seized material. 24. During the course of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that Revenue has not raised any ground challenging the finding of ld.CIT(A) regarding applicability of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT Vs.Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra). We however fail to find any merit in such contention because the Revenue has filed the appeal raising only one ground against the impugned order wherein the only finding given by ld.CIT(A) is allowing the additional ground on legal issue and therefore the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is against the allowing of additional ground of appeal by ld.CIT(A). 25. We also find that almost similar issue came for adjudication before the Coordinate Bench, Kolkata in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Surana Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. – IT(SS) A Nos.132 to 136/Kol/2018, dated 21.05.2024 and the finding of Tribunal reads as under : “9. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the decisions referred and relied upon by both the sides in the detailed written submission filed on various dates, during the course of hearing. The revenue's sole grievance is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's appeal by observing that additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/153A/153D of the Act is not based on any incriminating material/documents/evidence seized during the course of search operation. We observe that the search was carried out at the business and residential premises of Surana Group on 02/03/2016. Various documents, papers, hard disks, digital information were found and seized. So far as the case of the assessee Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 33 is concerned, the ld. Assessing Officer has referred to certain seized material and based on the same, examined the financial documents for the year under consideration and made certain additions. Admittedly, the returns for Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2014-15 were filed regularly u/s 139(1) of the Act on 25/09/2010, 26/09/2011, 28/09/2012, 28/09/2013 and 30/09/2014. It is also an admitted fact that as on the date of search, the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2013-14 stood completed and so far as Assessment Year 2014-15 is concerned, the return was not selected for scrutiny as no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued up to 30/09/2015. Now, for such completed Assessment Years, additions can be made only if any incriminating material is found during the course of search and additions, if any, made has a nexus with such incriminating material. In the past, this issue as come up before various Hon'ble High Courts but finally the matter was listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, held as follows:- \"5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. The question which is posed for consideration in the present set of appeals is, as to whether in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments, whether the jurisdiction of AO to make assessment is confined to incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A or not, i.e., whether any addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132 A of the Act, 1961 or not. 6. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that once upon the search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the assessment has to be done under section 153A of the Act, 1961 and the AO thereafter has the jurisdiction to pass assessment orders and to assess the 'total income' taking into consideration other material, though no incriminating material is found during the search even in respect of completed/unabated assessments. 7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such various High Courts, namely, Delhi High Court, Gujarat High Court, Bombay High Court, Karnataka High Court, Orissa High Court, Calcutta High Court, Rajasthan High Court and the Kerala High Court have taken the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed/unabated assessments in absence of any incriminating material. The lead judgment is by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra), which has been subsequently followed and approved by the other High Courts, referred to hereinabove. One another lead judgment on the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 34 issue is the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra), which has been followed by the Gujarat High Court in the subsequent decisions, referred to hereinabove. Only the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Mehndipur Balaji 2022 SCC Online All 444/[2023] 147 taxmann.com 201/ [2022] 447 ITR 517 has taken a contrary view. 7.1 In the case of Kabul Chawla (supra), the Delhi High Court, while considering the very issue and on interpretation of section 153A of the Act, 1961, has summarised the legal position as under: Summary of the legal position 38. On a conspectus of section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under section 132 of the Act, notice under section 153A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words, there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs \"in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax\". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment \"can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material.\" v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 35 is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e., those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.\" 7.2 Thereafter in the case of Saumya Construction (supra), the Gujarat High Court, while referring the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and after considering the entire scheme of block assessment under section 153A of the Act, 1961, had held that in case of completed assessment/unabated assessment, in absence of any incriminating material, no additional can be made by the AO and the AO has no jurisdiction to re-open the completed assessment. In paragraphs 15 & 16, it is held as under: \"15.On a plain reading of section 153A of the Act, it is evident that the trigger point for exercise of powers thereunder is a search under section 132 or a requisition under section 132A of the Act. Once a search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the Assessing Officer to issue notice under section 153A of the Act to the person requiring him to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the' assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made and assess or reassess the same. Since the assessment under section 153A of the Act is linked with search and requisition under sections 132 and 132A of the Act, it is evident that the object of the section is to bring to tax the undisclosed income which is found during the course of or pursuant to the search or requisition. However, instead of the earlier regime of block assessment whereby; it was only the undisclosed income of the block period that was assessed, section 153A of the Act seeks to assess the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the Assessing Officer shall Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 36 assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year, falling within such six assessment years. The second proviso makes the intention of the Legislature clear as the same provides that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to the six assessment years referred to in the sub- section pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. Sub-section (2) of section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which had abated under the second proviso would stand revived. The proviso thereto says, that such revival shall cease to have effect if such order of annulment is set aside. Thus, any proceeding of assessment or reassessment falling within the, six assessment years prior to the search or requisition stands abated and the total income of the assessee is required to be determined under section 153A, of the Act. Similarly, sub-section (2) provides for revival of any assessment or reassessment which stood abated, if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under section 153A of, the Act is annulled in appeal or any other proceeding. 16. Section 153A bears the heading \"Assessment in case of search or requisition\". It is well settled as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the heading of the, section can be regarded as a key to the interpretation of the operative portion of, the section and if there is no ambiguity in the language or if it is plain and clear, then the heading used in the section strengthens that meaning From the heading of section 153, the intention of the Legislature is clear, viz, to provide for assessment in case of search and requisition. When, the very purpose of the provision is to make assessment in case of search or requisition, it goes without saying that the assessment has to have relation to the search or requisition. In other words, the assessment, should be connected with something found during the search or requisition, viz., incriminating material which reveals undisclosed income Thus, while in view of the mandate of sub-section (1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance can be made only on the basis of material collected during the search or requisition. In case no incriminating material is found, as held by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) v. Asst. CIT (supra), the earlier assessment would have to be reiterated. In case where Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 37 pending assessments have abated, the Assessing Officer can pass assessment orders for each of the six years determining the total income of the assessee which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search or requisition. In case where a pending reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act.\" 8. For the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra), taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment in absence of any incriminating material. 9. While considering the issue involved, one has to consider the object and purpose of insertion of Section 153A in the Act, 1961 and when there shall be a block assessment under section 153A of the Act, 1961. 9.1 That prior to insertion of Section 153A in the statute, the relevant provision for block assessment was under section 158BA of the Act, 1961. The erstwhile scheme of block assessment under section 158BA envisaged assessment of 'undisclosed income' for two reasons, firstly that there were two parallel assessments envisaged under the erstwhile regime, i.e., (i) block assessment under section 158BA to assess the 'undisclosed income' and (ii) regular assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act to make assessment qua income other than undisclosed income. Secondly, that the 'undisclosed income' was chargeable to tax at a special rate of 60% under section 113 whereas income other than 'undisclosed income' was required to be assessed under regular assessment procedure and was taxable at normal rate. Therefore, section 153A came to be inserted and brought on the statute. Under Section 153A regime, the intention of the legislation was to do away with the scheme of two parallel assessments and tax the 'undisclosed' income too at the normal rate of tax as against any special rate. Thus, after introduction of Section 153A and in case of search, there shall be block assessment for six years. Search assessments/block assessments under section 153A are triggered by conducting of a valid search under section 132 of the Act, 1961. The very purpose of search, which is a prerequisite/trigger for invoking the provisions of sections 153A/153C is detection of undisclosed income by undertaking extraordinary power of search and seizure, i.e., the income Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 38 which cannot be detected in ordinary course of regular assessment. Thus, the foundation for making search assessments under sections 153A/153C can be said to be the existence of incriminating material showing undisclosed income detected as a result of search. 10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident that once search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the AO to issue notice under section 153 of the Act to the person, requiring him to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made and assess or reassess the same. Section 153A of the Act reads as under: \"153A. Assessment in case of search or requisition - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 139, Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132- A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139; b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made: Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years: Provided further that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132-A, as the case may be, shall abate. (2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 39 been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or Section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner: Provided that such revival shall cease to have effect, if such order of annulment is set aside Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that,-- (i) save as otherwise provided in this section, section 153-B and section 153-C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year.\" 11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A, the assessment or re- assessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. As per sub-section (2) of Section 153A, if any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub- section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner. Therefore, the intention of the legislation seems to be that in case of search only the pending assessment/reassessment proceedings shall abate and the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' for the entire six years period/block assessment period. The intention does not seem to be to re-open the completed/unabated assessments, unless any incriminating material is found with respect to concerned assessment year falling within last six years preceding the search. Therefore, on true interpretation of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, in case of a search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A and during the search any incriminating material is found, even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the AO would have the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' taking Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 40 into consideration the incriminating material collected during the search and other material which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as the undisclosed income. However, in case during the search no incriminating material is found, in case of completed/unabated assessment, the only remedy available to the Revenue would be to initiate the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannot be left with no remedy. Therefore, even in case of block assessment under section 153A and in case of unabated/completed assessment and in case no incriminating material is found during the search, the power of the Revenue to have the reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Act has to be saved, otherwise the Revenue would be left without remedy. 12. If the submission on behalf of the Revenue that in case of search even where no incriminating material is found during the course of search, even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the AO can assess or reassess the income/total income taking into consideration the other material is accepted, in that case, there will be two assessment orders, which shall not be permissible under the law. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the assessment under section 153A of the Act is linked with the search and requisition under sections 132 and 132A of the Act. The object of Section 153A is to bring under tax the undisclosed income which is found during the course of search or pursuant to search or requisition. Therefore, only in a case where the undisclosed income is found on the basis of incriminating material, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf of the Revenue is accepted, in that case, second proviso to section 153A and sub-section (2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or rewriting the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra) and the decisions of the other High Courts taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of the completed assessments in absence of any incriminating material. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 41 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: (i) that in case of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; (ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; (iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns; and (iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs.\" 10. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra) and even in the past when other group cases of the assessee came up for adjudication, on the similar issues, judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) has been referred to and relied upon and the view taken therein has subsequently been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra). 11. Now, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the contentions made by both the sides, the factual part which needs adjudication is whether any incriminating material was found during the course of search and whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer is having nexus with the impugned additions. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 42 For this, we would like to first refer to the observation of the ld. Assessing Officer given in assessment order for Assessment Year 2010-11 and the same is extracted below:- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 12. Now going through the above, we observe that the ld. Assessing Officer has referred to various incriminating material and corroborated the same with the statements of key person and employees of assessee company recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. We also take into consideration that before commencing the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3)/153A/153D of the Act all the seized material are in possession of the ld. Assessing Officer. In some seized material, specific dates are mentioned and such transactions have to be examined for the year for which they are referred to. There are certain documents which are in the shape of audited financial statements and other company records which are already forming part of the audited financial statements and income tax returns. Further there are certain material in the form of digital information found in the mobile phones. In the past, when mobile phones were not in much use, chances of finding loose sheets were much more. Subsequent to digitalization and use of computers and mobiles, now the information can be easily recorded in the mobile phones and computers. At the time of search, all such information available in the digital form in the mobile phones of various persons found at the searched premises are also seized and form part of the seized documents. In the assessee's case, we note that the ld. D/R filed copies of such digital information in the form of whatsapp chat which were found in the mobile phone of the accountant of the assessee company, namely, Suman Kumar Das. It is an uncontroverted fact that Suman Kumar Das was very much available at the premises on 02/03/2016 and these statements were recorded on the very same date and Suman Kumar Das was an employee of the assessee for past many years. He has explained the modus operandi of the business run by Shanti Kumar Surana and the companies controlled by him. We take note of the replies given to question no. 21 to 22 which are mentioned below:- \"Q.20 Please state, whether you are in full conscience of mind and sound state of health to continue recording of your statement. Ans. Yes Sir. I am now in full conscience of mind and sound state of health after taking my lunch and proper rest thereafter. Q.21 Please state the detailed modus operandi of handling of cash made by Shri Shanti Kumar Surana and his earnings thereof. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 43 Ans. Sir, it is a fact that the unaccounted cash transactions made by Shri Shanti Kumar Surana are being handled through me and Shri Sujit Saha and Satyajit Khara. Since a service of unaccounted cash handling has been provided by me and two other persons as stated earlier on the instructions of Shri Shanti Kumar Surana, so unaccounted income must have been generated by Shri Shanti Kumar Surana. As far as the quantification of income is concerned, I am unaware of the fact that how much percentage is getting for all these illegal services provided. Sir, I want to add here that we work on the instructions of Shri Shanti Kumar Surana only, we, as individual employees of this group are not at all involved in generation of unaccounted cash. Q.22 As you have stated that you have joined in this group during the year 2007-2008, i.e. you are associated with this group since long 8 years. It is also found during the course of search & seizure operation that all the cash transactions were made by this group through you only. In that case, you are supposed to be a close person of Shri Shanti Kumar Surana. Please state the modus operandi of the cash transactions done by this group. Ans. Sir, it is true that Shri Shanti Kumar Surana does put faith on me for the unaccounted cash transactions. But the modus operandi of unaccounted cash transactions is known to Shri Shanti Kumar Surana only. All the unaccounted cash which has to be given to any party, brought by Shri Shanti Kumar Surana personally in this office. I just receive them by taking the bag containing the cash from his car and keep them at office. Shri Surana sends a message to my mobile mentioning specific number of one Note usually of Rs. 10/-Thereafter, I deliver the said cash to the person who comes with the specific note, bearing the same number as given to me through mobile message by Shri Surana. For collecting cash from any party, Shri Surana directs me to send one staff from our office to some specific address with a specific Note. I depute one staff, in most of the cases Shri Sujit Saha, to collect the said unaccounted cash from the specific address in exchange of one specific rupee note. When the staff comes to office with the said cash, I keep them at this office and Shri Surana personally comes and collects the said unaccounted cash from me on the same date. As such I have no knowledge about the purpose or modus operandi for these unaccounted cash transactions.\" 13. We further note that in the statements recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act to Sumar Kumar Das was asked to explain the details appearing in page 1 to 11 of annexure-1 which were found in the whatsapp chat of his mobile phone. For reference, the list of such information found is mentioned below:- Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 44 xxxxxxx 15. We further note that the fact that the statement of Shri Shanti Kumar Surana was also recorded on the very same date and he made no request to the search team for cross-examination is the employees statement at that point of time. We presume that when the statement of the employee was taken, the employee/key person should have been available at the search premises and at no point of time he has controverted such statement of his employee. Even at a later stage Shanti Kumar Surana has not controverted the statement of his employee. Further we take note that the statement of Mr. Kamal Kothari, whose name was also appearing in the whatsapp chat list and was recorded few days after the search on 05/05/2016, wherein he stated that Shanti Kumar Surana is a known finance broker. He wanted to get some transactions done with my help for which the mode of exchange of cash was also suggested by him. Thereafter he stated that Shanti Kumar Surana used to make cash transfers using currency notes as token. The ld. Assessing Officer took note of the statement of the employee u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein he stated that 'KG' mentioned in the whatsapp chats denotes Lakhs. In reply to question no. 17, it was mentioned that 90T649261 denotes notes of Rs.10/- and 35KG denotes Rs.35 Lakhs/-. 15.1. Now, on going through the details of whatsapp chat, seized material referred by the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order, the statement on oath recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act of the key persons of the assessee company as well as employees clearly indicates the modus operandi of the nature of business of the assessee and the use of accommodation entry providers/entry operators for converting unaccounted cash/income/investments into the books of accounts. Now, so far as the term \"incriminating material\" is concerned, though it is not defined in the Income-tax Act but the general meaning is that the incriminating material, need not necessarily be some tangible material and it not only includes some documents/assets/entries in the books of accounts etc., but also any information stored in digital form or any confession of any person relevant to escapement of income. It has been judicially settled time and again that merely recording statement on oath, cannot be the basis to make an addition until and unless some corroborative evidence is found during the course of search. In the instant case, seized material includes the documents, assets, entries in the books of accounts, information stored in digital form and the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. It is also evident that though certain information indicate the dates but they hint the nature of business activities and the transactions carried out in the regular course. All these evidence collectively, which are incriminating in nature, were in the possession of the ld. Assessing Officer. 15.1.1. Now, question before us is that when the ld. Assessing Officer is having all these seized material in front of him and statements Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 45 have been recorded under oath u/s 132(4) of the Act, it clearly indicates that assessee is engaged in taking accommodation entries for routing of unaccounted cash/income etc. For the year under appeal we note that the ld. Assessing Officer has specifically dealt with the seized material by referring the relevant seized documents and has also discussed the modus operandi of the assessee company's business and thereafter has analyzed the financial transactions entered during the year. Now, for making addition in the completed Assessment Years, the only thing which is required by the ld. Assessing Officer is that there should be some incriminating material found during the course of search. As discussed above, there is incriminating material found in the form of hard disks, digital information and necessary corroboration of all these data with the statement of the key persons of the assessee company on the date of search itself. It is not a case of post search enquiry or that the additions having been made only on the basis of audited financial statements wherein the ld. Assessing Officer again examines the unsecured loans/share capital/shares, information for which were already disclosed in the regular return of income. What we are dealing herewith are the seized material found during the course of search which in our considered opinion are purely incriminating in nature which has given the powers to the ld. Assessing Officer to make the addition in completed/unabated Assessment Year u/s 153A of the Act. Therefore, so far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Curt in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra), the same is not applicable on the facts of the assessee because there is an incriminating material and the same has been referred and inferred by the ld. Assessing Officer for making the impugned addition. Certainly, once the jurisdiction is assumed and assessment proceedings are carried out, merely finding incriminating material is not a gateway to make the impugned addition and the assessee has sufficient opportunity to explain the genuineness of such seized material and to explain that no undisclosed/unaccounted income has been earned. But in the given case there is no rebuttal on the merits of the case i.e., about the additions made including addition u/s 68 of the Act and as the assessee has not filed any cross-objection against the order of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee's only plea is that in absence of incriminating material, the ld. Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions. 15.2. So far as the decision of this Tribunal in IT(SS)A No. 127 to 131/Kol/2018 vide order dt.26/05/2022 is concerned, we on perusal of the same find that the seized material as discussed by us above, was not provided for adjudication before this Tribunal and since the copies of such seized material was not available on record, this Tribunal had no occasion to examine the seized material so as to come to the conclusion that whether the material was incriminating in nature or not. Since there is a clear differentiation of facts, the decision of the Tribunal vide order dt. 26/05/2022 in the case of Shanti Kumar Surana (supra) cannot be applied on the instant Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 46 appeals and, therefore, there is no need to refer the matter to a Larger Bench because the facts are not identical. 16. As far as the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that no opportunity of cross-examination was awarded, we find that the statements referred by the ld. Assessing Officer as well as all the incriminating material referred (supra) were available at the time of search itself and the key person of the assessee company was at full liberty to rebut such transactions or to request the search team to cross- examine his employee who has given the statements. Further no such proof has been placed before us which can show that the assessee company has requested for cross-examination before the ld. Assessing Officer. It thus clearly shows that it is merely an afterthought and an alternate plea which has no foundation to contest for. 17. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances are of the considered view that though the Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2014- 15 falls in the category of completed and unabated Assessment Years but because various incriminating material were found during the course of search at the assessee's business and residential premises and the same were having a direct bearing on the financial transactions carried out by the assessee company and the modus operandi of the nature of business activities, for the years in dispute before us and that the ld. Assessing Officer has examined such incriminating material, referred the same in the assessment order and further taking note of the other statements and seized material available with him as part of the search documents, has concluded the assessment proceedings making various additions. Therefore, for Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2014-15, the ld. Assessing Officer was well within its jurisdiction to carry out the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3)/153A/153D of the Act and has rightly made the impugned additions and further since the assessee has not challenged the impugned additions by filing any cross-objections before us, we reverse the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and confirm the additions made by the Assessing Officer for the impugned Assessment Years.” 26. On going through the above decision of Coordinate Bench, Kolkata and also examining the facts of the instant case, we are of the considered view that since the Assessing Officer made the impugned addition based upon the incriminating material found during the course of search carried out in the case of assessee in the form of seized material found in the case of Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 47 other person which contained the transactions of the assessee and other group concerns carried out through cheque/cash made and the assessee during the course of search in its own case failed to controvert such transactions in the statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the act, we find that such transactions appearing in the seized material referred (supra) have taken up the shape of incriminating material found during the course of search in the case of assessee and therefore even though A.Y. 2012-13 is completed/unabated assessment year, ld. Assessing Officer has rightly assumed jurisdiction and has made the addition based on such seized material. Finding of ld.CIT(A) is reversed and grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are allowed. 27. So far as the appeal IT(SS)A No.2/PUN/2025 in the case of Kohinoor Development Corporation, we find that similar issue has been raised by the Revenue against the deletion of ₹4 crore for cash loan from unexplained sources and undisclosed interest income of ₹1,11,62,438 and that ld.CIT(A) has given relief allowing the legal issue raised by the assessee based on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT Vs.Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra). We find that this issue has already been discussed in IT(SS)A No.1/PUN/2025 in the case of Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal in the preceding paragraphs and further in the case of assessee – Kohinoor Development Corporation the transactions through account payee cheque were also found in such incriminating material found during the course of search in the case of Porwal- Agarwal-Mutha-Karia-B.U. Bhandari Group and further Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal and Kohinoor Development Corporation 48 confronted to the assessee during the course of search conducted on 18.02.2015 and therefore our decision in IT(SS)A No.1/PUN/2025 will apply in toto. Finding of ld.CIT(A) is reversed and Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are allowed. 28. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue vide IT(SS)A Nos. 1 and 2/PUN/2025 are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced on this 14th day of January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/-/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 14th January, 2026 Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "