DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD V. KETANKUMAR SURESHBHAI SHAH, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 34/AHD/2019

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals related to the income tax assessments of Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah for various assessment years, following a search and seizure operation conducted by the Income Tax Department. The primary issues revolved around the additions made to the assessee's income based on unexplained credits in bank accounts, which were linked to transactions involving substantial sums of money. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal examined the legal and factual basis of these additions, considering the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly Sections 68, 69, and 153C. The Tribunal noted the absence of adequate documentation and explanations from the assessee for some of the credits, leading to the restoration of the matter to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36806 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central IT, New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC), PCIT V. Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd [2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.N. DSOUZA; .; RIGNESH K. DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: DHIREN SHAH; NUPUR SHAH A.RS
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained cash credit; Document seized; Documents seized; Onus to prove; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Source of fund; Loose papers
• Section: 148; 144; 143(3); 142(1); 271(1)(c); 132; 153A; 68; 69; 153C

Judgement Text

"THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar , Accountant Member DCIT, Central Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad (Appellant) Vs Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah, C/o M/s. Shreej Infrastructure, B-1, Aniket Building, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad PAN: ACKPS9048L (Respondent) Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah, C/o M/s. Shreej Infrastructure, B-1, Aniket Building, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad PAN: ACKPS9048L (Appellant) Vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Dhiren Shah & Ms. Nupur Shah A.Rs. Revenue by: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-D.R. & Shri Rignesh K. Das, Sr. D.R. IT(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36/Ahd/2019 A. Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 & 2014-15 IT(SS)A Nos. 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 A. Y. 2009-2010 to 2015-2016 I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 2 Date of hearing : 24-10-2024 Date of pronouncement : 05-11-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- These are eleven appeals filed, out of which four are by Revenue and seven by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad, in proceeding u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C(1)(b) vide order dated 13/12/2018 passed for the assessment year 2009-10 to 2015-16. Since common facts and issues for consideration are involved for the various years before us, an appeals are being disposed by way of this common order. 2. The brief facts of the cases before us are that on December 4, 2014, a search and seizure operation was conducted at the residence of Shri Sanket Shah (Vora) located at C-104, Pushkar-3, Opp. Vitrag Society, P.T. College Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad. Certain loose papers were seized as per the Panchnama dated December 6-7, 2014. Among the seized documents, Annexure A-24 on page 67 included a letter dated June 20, 2008, from the Managing Director of Lotus Eye Care Hospital Limited to M/s. Keynote Corporate Services Limited. This letter marked a lien of ₹10,00,00,000 on the company's public issue account for a cheque issued to M/s. Shreej Infrastructure in payment for construction bills. Additionally, on page 35 of the same annexure, a signed cheque issued by Lotus Eye Care Hospital in favor of Shreej Infrastructure dated July 7, 2008, was also found. The I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 3 documentation recorded various funds paid by the Barter Group to M/s. Shreej Infrastructure (of which the assessee Shri Ketan Kumar Shah was the proprietor), noted as \"Shreej\" in the seized evidence. The address from which these materials were seized included not only the residence of Shri Sanket Shah but also the residence of Shri Ashit Haribhai Vora, situated at 5-B, Vasupujya Society, Ahmedabad, where further loose papers were inventorized as Annexure A-1. Both Shri Sanket Shah and Shri Ashit Haribhai Vora belonged to the Barter Group. The seized documents, spanning various pages of Annexure A-1, revealed significant amounts paid into M/s. Shreej Infrastructure (proprietor of which was the assessee) and highlighted a broader network of transactions involving Sanjay Sutaria and his related companies. Sanjay Sutaria was identified as managing the complete affairs of M/s. Sarthav Infrastructure Private Limited (of which Shri Sanjay Sutaria and Dharmendra Sutaria, were the Directors), and the documents indicated that funds were transferred from companies controlled by the Barter Group to entities associated with the assessee who was the proprietor of Shreej Infrastructure and also to Saral Infrastructure (proprietary concern of Mahendra Sutaria HUF) . Properties were subsequently transferred to members of the Barter Group by, suggesting a methodical exchange of funds and assets. In the analysis of the seized documents, the Department noted that various receipts in the seized books of accounts pertained to multiple assessment years, necessitating the identification of the years in which unaccounted funds were received for tax purposes. The documentation suggested a direct correlation between payments made and property transfers by the assessee to the Barter Group, highlighting the financial interactions within the Barter Group and its affiliates. The Assessing Officer observed that the funds transferred by Barter Group to Saral Management and Consultancy were transferred to various family members and concerns of Sutaria family. The Assessing Officer referred to various bank statements to come to the above conclusion. I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 4 The funds received in the bank accounts were immediately transferred to other family members and group concerns. The assessing officer, satisfied that the seized materials from both residences related to/ pertained M/s. Shreej Infrastructure and were relevant for assessment from the assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15, concluded that there were sufficient grounds for initiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, notices for assessment proceedings were to be issued to address the discrepancies highlighted by the seized documents, ensuring compliance with tax regulations regarding the recorded financial transactions and their implications. Assessment year 2009-10 (ITSSA No. 140/Ahd/2019) 3. We shall first take up assessment year 2009-10, in which only the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The assessee has taken the following Grounds of Appeal: “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal. He ought to have allowed the appeal fully in accordance with the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before him. 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in passing the order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 153C(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,64,77,000/- as made by the Ld. AO merely on account of credit entries appearing in the bank account of the appellant. The appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at the time of hearing. PRAYER The appellant therefore respectfully prays that:- I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 5 1. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 144 r.w.s 153C(1)(b) of the Act may kindly be quashed. 2. The addition of Rs. 30,64,77,000/- on account of credit entries in the bank account of the appellant confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 3. Such and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may justify.” 4.1 The assessee has also taken the following Additional Grounds of Appeal: “CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT DATED 17.02.2016 1. That the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the legal position that while exercising the powers conferred u/s 153A/153C of the Act, the addition in the case of assessments u/s 153A/153C has to be made only on the basis of incriminating material. The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central IT, New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC). 2. That the Ld AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate the legal position that re-agitating the concluded issues without any incriminating material found in the course of search relating thereto cannot be considered in proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT V. Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd [2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat) 3 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” 5. The brief facts relating to this assessment year are that on December 4, 2014, a search operation was conducted concerning the Accommodation Entry Provider Group in Ahmedabad, which led to subsequent actions, including the issuance of a notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act on February 17, 2016. A notice was served to the assessee, who, however, did not file any return or provide any explanations in response to the said Notice. Consequently, show cause notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued on October 10, 2015, and December 19, 2016. In response to the second notice, the assessee submitted explanations and details on December 21, 2016, but still the assessee failed to file a return in I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 6 response to the notice under Section 153C of the Act. The background of this case involves a search and survey operation on Anil Hiralal Shah (also known as Raju Barter), Atul Hiralal Shah, and their associated entities belonging to the Barter Group, revealing that the Barter Group was primarily engaged in stock market operations, which generated significant income that was not reflected in their official accounting. This income was reportedly sent into real estate ventures, particularly through Sarthav Infrastructure Private Limited, which is tied to the Sutaria Family. The inquiry by the Income Tax Department disclosed that the Barter Group has been involved in manipulating stock market operations and using multiple companies to create layers for hidden unaccounted funds. These funds often re-enter their accounts as share capital or unsecured loans. Atul Hiralal Shah, a central figure in the group, acknowledged these practices in statements made under oath. The Assessing Officer, upon examining the bank statement of the assessee's account at City Union Bank Limited, found that there was a significant credit of ₹14.15 crore during the year in the assessee’s bank account, with the entire amount subsequently transferred out of the account. The assessee was then asked to clarify whether these transactions were recorded in their books, to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors/depositors, and to confirm the genuineness of these transactions as required by Section 68 of the Act. In a follow-up submission submitted by the assessee on December 29, 2016, the assessee provided their bank statements, which revealed total credits of ₹ 30.64 crore for this year. Moreover, the assessment of these entries showed numerous deposits and withdrawals without adequate explanations. The Assessing Officer observed that the entries raised significant questions about the origins of the funds and their reflection in the accounting books. The assessee did not provide satisfactory explanations regarding the opening balances of various parties, failed to establish the identities of creditors, and could not prove the genuineness or creditworthiness of the transactions. Due I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 7 to the inability to satisfactorily clarify the source of substantial deposits totalling to ₹30.64 crore, these amounts were treated as income for the year, leading to the initiation of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for concealing income. 6. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions with the following observations; “6. The facts mentioned in the assessment order and SOF have been considered The AO made the additions for the credits of Rs.30,64,77,000/- shown in the bank account of the appellant. The appellant did not attend or submit any submission before the AO during the assessment proceedings, hence, assessment was made u/s.144 of the Act. Even during the appellate proceedings, inspite of several opportunities granted, as mentioned in para above, the appellant did not respond. Thus, it is clear that the appellant has nothing to say against the order passed by the AO. There is no dispute about the ownership of the bank account. The appellant owned it as written in the SOF Regarding credits in bank account from companies, it is appellant's onus to prove identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors beyond doubt. The appellant failed to submit any evidence or submission to discharge his onus. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the AO. Hence, additions of Rs.30,64,77,000/- are confirmed. This ground of appeal is dismissed.” 7. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirming the additions made by the assessing officer. 8. The counsel for the assessee took before us various arguments in connection with the additions made by the assessing officer. The first contention of the counsel for the assessee was that the additions were made by the assessing officer without and in absence of any “incriminating material” found during the search operations conducted by the assessee. The counsel for the assessee submitted that this was an unabated assessment year, in which the time for filing of return of income and subsequent I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 8 assessment had lapsed and therefore, no additions can be made in absence of any “incriminating material”, found by the Assessing Officer. Secondly, the counsel for the assessee submitted that from the perusal of the assessment order, it is evident that there was no “satisfaction note”, forming part of the present assessment order and hence any assessment under section 153C read with section 153A, in absence of requisite satisfaction note, is void in the eyes of law. Accordingly, it was submitted that the assessment order framed is liable to be set aside on this ground. Besides the above, other arguments were also taken, which shall be dismissed in the later paragraph. 9. In response, DR submitted that the additions have been clearly made on the basis of incriminating documents found in the course of search and therefore, the argument of the counsel for the assessee that the present assessment has been framed in absence of any incriminating material is clearly erroneous. Further, the DR submitted that the argument of the assessee that the present year is an unabated assessment year and time for completion of assessment has lapsed, is also technically incorrect since for the impugned year under consideration, the Department had issued notice to the assessee dated 17-02-2016, asking the assessee to the file return of income, for the impugned year under consideration, however, the assessee did not file the return of income despite the specific direction of the Income Tax Department. Therefore the assessee now cannot take the plea that the present assessment is an unabated assessment year as the time of completion of assessment has elapsed. The DR submitted that the argument of addition having been made on the basis of “incriminating documents” can only be sustained once the assessee has filed return of income, but for the impugned assessment year clearly despite issuance of notice to the assessee to file return of income for the impugned assessment year, the assessee failed to comply and no return of income was filed. Accordingly, DR submitted that I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 9 there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference. 10. We shall start the first argument of the counsel for the assessee that the assessment order has not been framed on the basis of any “satisfaction note”, which is a prerequisite in case of assessment completed under section 153C read with section 153A of the Act. From the facts placed on record, we are of the considered view that this assertion/argument of the counsel for the assessee is erroneous and misplaced for the simple reason that a detailed “satisfaction note” was prepared by the assessing officer of the searched party under section 153C of the Act, in which the entire operations/documents on the basis of which the assessee was asked to file return of income for the impugned assessment year was discussed in detail. In the said satisfaction note, the assessing officer had observed that the Barter group had paid certain amount to Shreej investments, of which the assessee was the proprietor, in return of allocation of certain properties. Further, on the same day i.e. 17-02-2016, the assessing officer of the assessee issued notice under section 153C read with 153A of the Act, asking the assessee to file return of income for the impugned assessment year i.e. 2009-10. The contents of the notice issued under section 153C of the Act, by the assessing officer is being reproduced below for ready reference “Sir/Madam. A search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of BARTER GROUP on 04/12/2014. During the course of search, various documents were seized which belonged to you and have bearing on the determination of the total income for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2014-15 in your case, which is required to be assessed / re-assessed. Thus, your case is covered under the provisions of Section 153C of the IT Act. 1961 You are, therefore, required to furnish return of your income u/s 153C rws 153A(1)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for A.Y 2009-10 in respect of which you are assessable under the Income tax Act, 1901. The return should be filed in the appropriate forms as prescribed in Rule 12 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. It should be duly verified and signed in I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 10 accordance with the provisions of section 140 of the said Act and delivered at my office as mentioned above within 30 days from the service of this notice. Yours sincerely Sd/- (C. P. Meena) Deputy Commissioner of Income tax Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabsad Further, we observe that even in the assessment order, it was specifically observed that on account of the search and survey operations on the Barter group, various incriminating documents have been found on the basis of which it was found that substantial amounts were received by Shreej infrastructure, of which the assessee is the proprietor. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer observed that the assessee had failed to file return of income and on perusal of the bank statement it was observed that the assessee had received a sum of 30.64 crores, for which the assessee had no plausible explanation. Therefore, from the instant facts, it is evident that the assertion of the counsel for the assessee that no “satisfaction note” was recorded and that the assessment order was not on the basis of any satisfaction note prepared by the assessing officer, is, in our considered view, factually incorrect. Therefore, this argument of the counsel for the assessee is hereby rejected. We would like to note that the above observations with regard to satisfaction note also have a bearing for other assessment years under consideration as well (assessment year 2009-10 to 2014-15) since a common “satisfaction note” was recorded for all the assessment years under consideration before us, with separate notices under section 153C read with section 153A of the Act being issued to the assessee, for each of the respective assessment years, I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 11 asking the assessee to file return of income for the various assessment years under consideration. 10.1 The second argument of the counsel for the assessee is that the additions have not been on the basis of any “incriminating material” found during the course of search. However, from the facts placed on record, we are of the considered view that it is factually incorrect to state that the assessments have not been framed on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search. We observe that in the search conducted on the Barter group, the assessing officer of the searched party observed that substantial payments were made by the Barter group to the propriety concern of the assessee, in lieu of allocation of certain properties. Further, on the basis of the aforesaid information, the assessing officer asked the assessee to file return of income, which the assessee failed to do for the impugned assessment year. Therefore, during the course of assessment proceedings, on observation of the bank statements of the assessee, the assessing officer observed that the assessee had received substantial sums in excess of ₹ 30 crores, during the year under consideration, for which the assessee had no plausible explanation whatsoever. The provisions of section 153A / 153C of the Act are not the normal assessment provisions like 143(3) of the Act, rather they are curative provisions to plug the mischief of misreporting or underreporting of taxable income based on evidence found in pursuance to search. The phrase \"incriminating material\" is neither defined in section 153A nor defined anywhere else in the Income Tax Act and hence the implication of this term is required to the understood in the context of misreporting and / or under reporting along with intent and purpose of the provisions of Search and Seizure under the Income Tax Act, which in the present facts clearly revealed, the existence of “incriminating material” to initiate the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act. Therefore, looking into the I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 12 contents of the satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer of the searched party, we are of the considered view that the Department was in possession of substantial material, pertaining/relating to the assessee, and the same was clearly, in our considered view “incriminating material” so as to initiate assessment under section 153A of the Act and the assessee. Accordingly, the second argument of the counsel for the assessee that the present proceedings were not initiated on the basis of “incriminating material” is liable to be rejected. 10.2 The third argument of the counsel for the assessee before us was that in view of various judicial precedents, in case of search assessments relating to unabated assessment years, the additions have to be restricted to only the “incriminating material” found during the course of search and no addition can been made, which is not on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search. Though, in the preceding paragraphs we have specifically held that in our view, the material which was found in the course of search clearly constituted “incriminating material” and a detailed discussion of the material has also been made in the “satisfaction note” prepared by the assessing officer of the searched party, however, in addition to the above, we would also like to point out that the above argument that this is a case of unabated assessment year, in which the time for assessment proceedings has lapsed, is not available to the assessee in the first instance. This is for the simple reason that after the preparation of satisfaction note, a notice dated 17-02-2016 was served upon the assessee under section 153C of the Act, asking the assessee to file return of income for the impugned assessment year. However, the assessee failed to respond to notice issued by the assessing officer and did not file the return of income for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, once the assessee itself has not filed return of income in response to notice I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 13 issued under section 153C of the Act, the assessee is precluded from taking the plea that the assessment has become time-barred. Accordingly, this argument of the counsel for the assessee is also hereby dismissed. 10.3 We must also mention that the satisfaction note was prepared by the assessing officer for the various years under consideration on 17-02-2016 and thereafter, notice under section 153C read with section 153A of the Act was issued by the assessing officer on the same date that is 17-02-2016 asking the assessee to file return of income for respective under consideration, and therefore, the argument of the assessee that the assessing officer failed to record satisfaction before the issuance of notice asking the assessee to file return of income for the various years under consideration, is liable to be rejected on observation of the above facts and dates as mentioned above. 10.4 Now coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the assessee has not been able to give any plausible explanation whatsoever with regard to the source of deposit of Rs. 30,64,77,000/- in the bank account held by the assessee. The assessee contended that it had earned income which was below the taxable limit during the impugned year under consideration and therefore the assessee was not liable to file return of income. However, the assessee has not been able to give any plausible explanation whatsoever regarding deposit of a sum of ₹ 30.64 crores in his bank account and why the same should not constitute as income of the assessee in absence of any explanation on part of the assessee whatsoever. Further, we observe that even before Ld. CIT(Appeals), none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case on merits. I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 14 10.5 We were also like to add that argument of the assessee that the present additions cannot be made under section 68 of the Act, since bank statements do not constitute books of accounts and since the amount which was added by the assessee was on the basis of credit entries appearing in the bank statements, and therefore the Assessing Officer has erred in facts and in law in making additions in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, is also liable to be rejected. We are of the considered view that the above arguments of the assessee are absolutely frivolous and has no legs to stand on. The assessee cannot be engaged in widespread manipulation and fraudulent activities aimed at evasion of taxes activities and then allowed relief only by taking recourse to some technical plea, which per se does not go into the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass the present assessment orders or the order being passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The assessee was given sufficient opportunities to explain the source of credit entries appearing in his books of accounts running into several crores, but the assessee has, for no justifiable reason, failed to cause appearance or provide any explanation in support of source of deposit in the entries in his bank account. The assessee is only seeking to take recourse to technical grounds and is not willing to discharge the onus cast upon him to explain the source of credits appearing in his bank account and why the assessee failed to file return of income, despite substantial amounts appearing in his bank account. In the case of Silverdale Inn (P.) Ltd. 127 taxmann.com 679 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court has held that where Assessing Officer issued reopening notice against assessee on ground that an information was received from NMS (Non filler monitoring system) that assessee had received cash deposits of certain amount in a bank account but had not disclosed same in its return, since assessee had failed to submit supporting evidences and source of income with regard to said cash deposits, impugned reopening notice issued against assessee was justified under section 68 of the Act. Again, the High Court in the case of Rajmeet Singh I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 15 160 taxmann.com 83 (Jharkhand) held that where assessee had deposited cash in bank but source of income in case of assessee had not been proved and assessee had failed to prove identity/creditworthiness/genuineness of transaction, impugned addition on account of cash deposit was justified under section 68 of the Act. the High Court made the following observation while dealing with this specific issue: 13. It is true that pass book itself cannot be treated as books of accounts, but in the instant case as appears from the order that the assesssee has submitted balance-sheet, profit and loss account, computation of income etc. and certainly the assessee also maintained his own books of account in his ledger; as such the findings given by learned Tribunal that in the peculiar facts and circumstances the claim of the assessee is not sustainable, prima facie, is acceptable to this Court. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention here that it is not a case where the assessee has proved the source of income or identity/creditworthiness/genuineness of transaction and before us they have taken only one ground that since the pass book cannot be treated as books of account; as such the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section n68 of the Act is not sustainable is not sustainable. 14. At this stage, it is also relevant to opine that only for not mentioning the correct provision in the assessment order, an amount which may be an income under the provisions of the Act cannot be allowed to go untaxed. Admittedly, in the Income Tax Act under Section 69 of the Act there is a provision of undisclosed investment and certainly an amount deposited in the Bank will come under the purview of investment. Otherwise also no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as learned counsel for petitioner failed to show any prejudice even when a wrong provision has been mentioned in the assessment order. Further it is a settled legal principle that if a source of power can be traced, the mere mentioning of wrong section/provision will not invalidate the order. 15. Even assuming the contention of the petitioner that passbook cannot be treated as part of Books of Accounts to be true; admittedly, the source of income in the case of both the assesses has not been proved; inasmuch as, both the assesses have failed to prove the identity/creditworthiness/genuineness of the creditors, who have given cash loan as claimed by them . Further, the assessee has submitted the balance-sheet, profit and loss account, Bank account and computation of income and other details before the Assessing Officer. Thus, definitely those amounts have escaped the taxation and as stated hereinabove only for not mentioning the correct provision in the assessment order an I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 16 amount which may be an income under any of the provisions of the Act; cannot be allowed to go untaxed. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the considered view that no error has been committed by the Tax Authorities and/or the learned Tribunal in adding the amount not disclosed to the total income of the respective Assessee. For the reasons stated herein above, the judgments cited by learned senior counsel for the appellants has no bearing in the facts and circumstance of these cases. 10.5 However, looking into the instant facts and the quantum of additions made in the hands of the assessee, in interest of justice, the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(Appeals) for de novo consideration in light of any evidence/supporting material which the assessee would like to place on record in support of the source of deposit of Rs. 30,64,77,000/- in the bank account held by the assessee. The Ld. DR has also not objected to the present matter being restored to the file Ld. CIT(Appeals) for de novo consideration, in the interests of justice. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes for assessment year 2009-10. Assessment year 2010-11 (IT(ss) 141/Ahd/2019 and IT(ss) 33/Ahd/2019) 12. These are cross appeal filed by the Assessee and the Revenue against the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee is in appeal before us against the additions which have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), whereas the Revenue, is in appeal before us against the additions in respect of which the relief has been granted by Ld. CIT(Appeals). The background in the case is similar to the facts of the case pertaining to assessment year I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 17 2009-10, wherein search under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Barter group on 04-12-2014 and the Assessing Officer on the basis of certain incriminating material found during the course of search, asked the assessee to file return of income for the impugned assessment years from assessment year 2009-10 to 2014-15. The present appeal relates to assessment year 2010-11. The assessee had filed a return of income in response to notice u/s 153C read with 153A of the Act declaring a meagre income of Rs. 20/- only despite credits amounting to ₹14.15 crores coming in his bank account and the assessee being engaged in the business of real estate development. 13. The brief facts of the case are that on December 4, 2014, a search operation was conducted involving the Accommodation Entry Provider Group in Ahmedabad, which led to the issuance of a notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act on February 17, 2016. This notice was served on the assessee, who, despite the legal requirement, did not file a return or respond to the notice. By that time, however, the deadline for filing a return had already passed, and the assessee did not submit a return until December 29, 2016, declaring a total income of merely ₹20/-. The Assessing Officer observed that the case’s background indicates that the Barter Group, primarily operated by Anil Hiralal Shah and Atul Hiralal Shah, was involved in stock market operations and manipulations. Profits from these activities were reportedly funneled into real estate investments, particularly through a company named Sarthav Infrastructure Private Limited, associated with the Sutaria Family. The Assessing Officer observed that a critical examination of the assessee's bank statement with City Union Bank revealed a staggering credit of ₹14.15 crore, which was subsequently transferred out of the account. In response to a show cause notice issued on December 19, 2016, the assessee was requested to clarify whether these I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 18 transactions were reflected in their accounting records and to provide evidence of the identity and creditworthiness of the depositors, as mandated under Section 68 of the Act. The submission provided by the assessee included a list of alleged sources for the credited amounts, detailing transactions with several entities. However, upon scrutiny, many discrepancies were identified. For instance, while the assessee claimed to have received ₹10 crore from Abhisar Developers, there was no supporting documentation, such as a bank statement or income tax return of this entity, to validate the claim. Similarly, transactions with Siddham Finance raised red flags, as there were inconsistencies regarding the reported amounts, and the necessary documentation to support these claims was lacking. The inquiry by the Assessing Officer further revealed that the opening balances for several accounts mentioned in the submissions were not substantiated with adequate evidence. In cases involving Aadi Corporation and Shree Divya Investment, the submitted figures by the assessee did not align with those presented in the bank statements or confirmations. Overall, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee failed to establish the identities of the creditors, the genuineness of the transactions, and the creditworthiness of the parties involved. Consequently, the total amount of ₹14.15 crore that appeared as deposits in the bank account was deemed unexplained and treated as income under Section 69 of the Act. 14. In appeal Ld. CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) observed that the primary contention raised in the first ground of appeal was against the addition of ₹14,15,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer, who deemed the credits in the appellant's bank account as non- genuine. The CIT(A) observed that credits in question were attributed to several entities: Abhisar Developers, Siddham Finance, Shree Divya Investment, and Adi Corporation, with respective amounts of ₹10,00,000, I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 19 ₹11,25,00,000, ₹40,00,000, and ₹1,50,00,000. Regarding Abhisar Developers, the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings only provided a copy of the confirmation and PAN but failed to submit the income tax return (ITR) needed to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the creditor. Consequently, the AO made the addition. In the case of Siddham Finance, while the assessee provided confirmation, a bank statement, and an ITR, the AO identified discrepancies that led to the addition. For Shree Divya Investment, no evidence was presented to support the credit, resulting in another addition. Similarly, discrepancies were noted in the credits from Adi Corporation, prompting the AO to make further additions. In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee argued in the Statement of Facts that the credit from Siddham Finance, which is a proprietary concern of Sanjay M. Sutaria, HUF, had undergone an assessment under Section 153A by the AO himself. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee claimed to have provided adequate documentation, including confirmation, bank statements, and ITRs and had asserted that the AO did not highlight any defects in these submissions. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the facts confirmed that Siddham Finance was indeed linked to Sanjay M. Sutaria, HUF, whose assessments were conducted by the same AO. Ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that there were no adverse findings that would invalidate the credit from Siddham Finance. The regular banking transactions and absence of cash deposits just prior to issuing a cheque to the appellant further substantiated the legitimacy of this credit. Consequently, Ld. CIT(Appeals) found merit in the contention of the assessee regarding the credit from Siddham Finance, leading to the deletion of the addition of ₹11.25 crore made by the AO. However, for the remaining creditors—Abhisar Developers, Shree Divya Investment, and Adi Corporation— CIT(A) was of the view that the appellant did not successfully demonstrate the necessary identity, genuineness of transactions, I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 20 or creditworthiness with supporting documentation. Therefore, the additions amounting to ₹2.90 crore were confirmed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). IT(ss) 141/Ahd/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11), Assessee’s Appeal 15. The Assessee has taken the following Grounds of Appeal: “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the appeal partly. He ought to have allowed the appeal fully in accordance with the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before him. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,90,00,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 14,15,00,000/- as made by the Ld. AO merely on account of credit entries appearing in the bank account of the appellant. The appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at the time of hearing. PRAYER The appellant therefore respectfully prays that 1. The addition of Rs. 2,90,00,000/- (out of total addition of Rs, 14,15,00,000/- ) on account of credit entries in the bank account of the appellant confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 2. Such and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may justify.” 15.1 The Assessee has also taken the following Additional Grounds of Appeal: “CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT DATED 17.02.2016 1. That the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the legal position that while exercising the powers conferred u/s 153A/153C of the Act, the addition in the case of assessments u/s 153A/153C has to be made only on the basis of incriminating material. The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central IT, New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC). 2. That the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate the legal position that re-agitating the concluded issues without any incriminating material found in the course of search relating thereto cannot be considered in I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 21 proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT V. Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd [2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat) 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” Department Appeal (AY 2010-11) IT(ss) 33/Ahd/2019 (Department’s Appeal, A.Y. 2010-11) 16. The Department has taken the 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 law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.11,25,00,000/- in respect of credit from M/s Siddham Finance out of total addition of Rs.14,15,00,020/-. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5000/-made on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.” 17. The Department is in appeal before us against the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) with respect to a sum of ₹ 11.25 crores pertaining to Siddham Finance. The learned DR submitted that Ld. CIT(Appeals) gave relief to the assessee on the basis that in the assessment of Sanjay Sutaria HUF (Siddham Finance being the proprietary concern of Sanjay Sutaria HUF), the assessment was made by the same assessing officer and no adverse inference was found by the said Assessing Officer. However, DR submitted that the assessment in the case of Siddham Finance was completed I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 22 on 29-12-2017, whereas the present assessment order was passed on 30-12- 2016 and therefore, clearly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in giving relief to the assessee on the basis of assessment conducted in the case of Siddham Finance, which was clearly at a later date. 18. During the course of present proceedings before us, we asked the Counsel for the assessee as well as DR to provide copy of the assessment order in the case of Siddham Finance, so as to be able to ascertain as to whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was correct in facts and in law in coming to the conclusion that during the course of assessment of Siddham Finance, the issue regarding the creditworthiness of the party i.e. Siddham Finance and its ability to grant/lend a sum of 11.25 crores to the assessee had been examined by the assessing officer, and thus having been satisfied with regards to the ability of Siddham Finance to lend the said amount to the assesee, no addition on this account was liable to be made in the hands of Siddham Finance. However, the assessment order passed in the case of Siddham Finance was not produced before us for our perusal. Further, during the course of the present proceedings, we were informed by the parties that additions were made in the hands of Siddham Finance by taking recourse to proceedings under section 148 of the Act and finally, the Tribunal gave relief to the said assessee i.e. Siddham Finance. Therefore, on the basis of facts placed on record before us and in absence of assessment order of Siddham Finance and the subsequent orders passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) and ITAT, we are unable to ascertain whether the issue of creditworthiness/ability of Siddham Finance to lend the amount of 11.25 crores to the present assessee was examined in the assessment proceedings of Siddham Finance or not. Further, the counsel for the assessee submitted that apart from the assessment in the case of Siddham Finance, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) had also given relief to the assessee on I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 23 account of other documents like books of accounts and bank statements, which were available with the assessing officer. However, we observe that the concerned assessing officer despite having possession of the above documents was not satisfied with the creditworthiness of Siddham Finance and therefore, it was on this basis alone that the Assessing Officer added the aforesaid amount to the income of the assessee. 19. On going through the instant facts, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not given a sound basis of granting relief to the assessee in the appellate order. The Assessment order of Siddham Finance has not been placed before us and therefore, we are unable to ascertain whether Ld. CIT(Appeals) has correctly allowed relief to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this issue relating to addition of 11.25 crores on account of amounts received from Siddham Finance is hereby restored to the file of Ld. CIT(Appeals) for de novo consideration, and the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is directed to pass a detailed order giving the basis of granting relief to the assessee on this issue. 20. In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes. Assessee’s Appeal AY 2010-11 21. The assessee is in appeal before us against the additions which have been confirmed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). On going to the facts of the instant case, we observe that the assessee did not cause appearance before Ld. CIT(Appeals) to give any explanation with regards to credits appearing in the bank account of the assessee. Further, in the earlier part of the order we I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 24 have already held that there was “incriminating material” available with the Assessing Officer on the basis of which the present proceedings under section 153C read with 153A of the Act which were initiated in the hands of the assessee. Further, we observe that despite the fact that during the impugned year under consideration, total credits amounting to ₹ 14.15 crores were appearing in the bank account of the assessee and considering the fact that the assessee had stated that the assessee is in the business of real estate development, the assessee did not file return of income for the impugned year under consideration. Thereafter, when proceedings under section 153C read with 153A of the Act were initiated in the hands of the assessee, the assessee filed a return of income declaring a total income of ₹ 20 only. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, when requisitioned, the assessee did not give any plausible explanation in support of the credits amounting to ₹ 14.15 crores appearing in the bank account of the assessee. Even before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee did not cause appearance not file any supporting evidences to provide any plausible explanation. Therefore, considering the present facts, we are of the considered view that the assessee has not been able to give any plausible explanation regarding the creditworthiness of the entities found in its books of accounts. Further, since we have already held that the material in the hands of the assessing officer constituted “incriminating material” and the same clearly pertained/related to the assessee, we are of the considered view that the assessing officer had validly initiated proceedings against the assessee. Having held that the material was incriminating material in the hands of the assessing officer, there is no further requirement to analyse the impact of Saumya construction and other judgements relied upon by the assessee, in support of the assertion that the additions have to be restricted only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search, in case of unabated assessment years. I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 25 22. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, in respect of the additions in the hands of the assessee, for which the assessee is in appeal before us, the matter is being restored to the file of Ld. CIT(Appeals) for de novo consideration, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee on merits. We observe that Ld. CIT(Appeals) did not get an opportunity to examine/analyse the merits of the additions which were confirmed, in absence of the assessee causing appearance during the course of appellate proceedings before him. However, looking into the quantum of additions which have been made in the hands of the assessee, in all fairness and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to present its case on merits and give supporting evidences in support of the credits appearing in the bank account of the assessee. Before us, learned DR has also agreed that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(Appeals) for de novo consideration, and decide the matter in accordance with law in the light of evidences placed by the assessee before him during the course of set aside proceedings. 23. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes for AY 2010-11. Assessment year 2011-12 (IT(ss) 142/Ahd/2019 and IT(ss) 34/Ahd/2019) IT(SS)A 142/Ahd/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12)- Assessee’s Appeal 24. The assessee has taken the following Grounds of Appeal: I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 26 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the appeal partly. He ought to have allowed the appeal fully in accordance with the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before him. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 20.63 crores out of total addition of Rs. 21.88 crores as made by the Ld. AO merely on account of credit entries appearing in the bank account of the appellant. The appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at the time of hearing. PRAYER The appellant therefore respectfully prays that :- 1. The addition of Rs. 20.63 crores (out of total addition of Rs. 21.88 crores) on account of credit entries in the bank account of the appellant confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 2. Such and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may justify. 24.1 The assessee has also taken the following Additional Grounds of Appeal: “CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT DATED 17.02.2016 “1. That the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the legal position that while exercising the powers conferred u/s 153A/153C of the Act, the addition in the case of assessments u/s 153A/153C has to be made only on the basis of incriminating material. The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central IT, New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC). 2. That the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate the legal position that re-agitating the concluded issues without any incriminating material found in the course of search relating thereto cannot be considered in proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT V. Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd [2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat) 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of assessing authority appeal.” ITA No. 34/Ahd/2019 (Department’s Appeal, A.Y. 2011-12 25. The Department has taken the 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 law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,25,00,000/- in I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 27 respect of credits from M/s Siddham Finance out of total addition of Rs.21,88,00,000/- made on account of addition of unexplained credits in the bank. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,000/-(wrongly mentioned as Rs.5,00,000/-) made by the AO on account of addition of unexplained cash deposits in bank. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.” 26. These are cross appeal filed by the Assessee and the Revenue against the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee is in appeal before us against the additions which have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), whereas the Revenue, is in appeal before us against the additions in respect of which the relief has been granted by Ld. CIT(Appeals). The background in the case is similar to the facts of the case pertaining to assessment year 2009-10, wherein search under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Barter group on 04-12-2014 and the assessing officer on the basis of certain incriminating material found during the course of search, asked the assessee to file return of income for the impugned assessment years from assessment year 2009-10 to 2014-15. The present appeal relates to assessment year 2011-12. The assessee had filed a return of income in response to notice u/s 153C read with 153A of the Act declaring a meagre income of Rs. 11/- only despite being engaged in the business of real estate development and total deposits of ₹21,88,00,000 coming in his bank account, during the impugned year under consideration. 27. The background of the case remains largely as previous years that on December 4, 2014, a search and survey operation was conducted involving I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 28 Anil Hiralal Shah (alias Raju Barter), Atul Hiralal Shah, and their family members, revealing that the Barter Group primarily engaged in stock market operations and manipulations. This group operated in real estate under the brand \"Abhishree\" in association with the Sutaria family and primarily through M/s. Sarthav Infrastructure Private Limited, where substantial income was reported as cash, unaccounted for in their regular financial records. Upon reviewing the bank statement for account number 122164 with City Union Bank Limited, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee received a total credit of ₹16,93,00,000 during the relevant financial year, with the amounts subsequently transferred out. A show cause notice was issued on December 19, 2016, requesting the assessee to clarify whether these transactions were reflected in their books and to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors, and the genuineness of the transactions as required under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. In response, the assessee submitted a document labeled Exhibit-I, detailing the sources of funds, which included Siddham Finance, Abhisar Developers, Adi Corporation, Astha Association, Aqua Logistics Ltd, Omkar Speciality Chemicals, and Laxmi Dyechem Industries, with the total amounting to ₹21,88,00,000. However, as per the Assessing Officer discrepancies and gaps in documentation were evident across several transactions. The Assessing Officer observed that for Siddham Finance, although the assessee provided confirmation, bank statements, and ITR, the verification revealed an opening credit balance of ₹1,85,36,740, and a subsequent loan/advance to Siddham Finance of ₹12,80,50,000. The lack of current P&L accounts and balance sheets to substantiate these transactions was noted by the AO. Regarding Abhisar Developers, AO observed that the only evidence presented was a confirmation and PAN, without the necessary bank statement or ITR to validate the creditor's capacity and the transaction's genuineness. The Assessing Officer also observed that there was an unexplained opening credit balance in the account. For Adi Corporation, the I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 29 situation was similar, where the submission included a confirmation but lacked evidence to support the opening balances. In the case of Astha Associates, AO observed that the same deficiencies in documentation were present, lacking necessary tax returns and bank statements. Furthermore, substantial amounts received from Aqua Logistics Ltd and Omkar Speciality Chemicals were unsupported by any documentation, including confirmations or PANs. Consequently, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence to explain the opening balances, nor did the submissions match the confirmations, leaving the source of the bank credits unverified. This lack of clarity led to the conclusion that the assessee failed to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties from whom the substantial amounts were received. As a result, the total deposits of ₹21,88,00,000 in the bank account were treated as income for the financial year under the provisions of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, due to the inadequacy of the explanations and supporting documents provided by the assessee. 28. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that regarding the credit of ₹1.25 crores from Siddham Finance, the assessee submitted a confirmation, bank statement, and income tax return (ITR) to the AO. CIT(A) observed that the Siddham Finance is identified as a proprietary concern of Sanjay M. Sutaria, HUF, which had been previously assessed by the same AO. Consequently, the identity of the creditor was deemed established. The transactions were conducted through regular banking channels, with no cash deposits noted in Siddham Finance’s bank account. Moreover, the AO had access to the relevant books of accounts and bank statements, finding no adverse evidence against the appellant. Therefore, the additions of ₹1.25 crores were considered unjustified and deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee was unable to provide adequate I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 30 documentation to substantiate the genuineness of transactions and the creditworthiness of the remaining creditors, including Abhisar Developers, Adi Corporation, Astha Association, Aqua Logistics Ltd, Omkar Specialty Chemicals, and Laxmi Dyechem Industries. As a result, the AO's additions amounting to ₹20.63 crores were confirmed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). 29. The assessee and Department are in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), partly allowing the appeal of the assessee. We observe that the additions made by the assessing officer and the relief granted by Ld. CIT(Appeals) are largely on similar lines as in case of assessment year 2010-11. Accordingly, in interest of justice, in view of our detailed discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(Appeals) for de novo consideration. The learned DR has also not objected to the matter being restored to the file of Ld. CIT(Appeals) for his consideration. Our observations with regards to legal arguments/technical plea taken by the counsel for the assessee has been dealt in the foregoing part of the order, and the same is not reproduced here again for the sake of brevity. 30. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Department are allowed for statistical purposes. Assessment year 2012-13 (IT(ss) 143/Ahd/2019 and IT(ss) 35/Ahd/2019) Assessee’s Appeal (ITSSA 143/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2012-13) I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 31 31. The assessee has taken the following Grounds of Appeal: “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the appeal partly. He ought to have allowed the appeal fully in accordance with the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before him. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,25,00,000 out of total addition of Rs. 19,02,83,690/- as made by the Ld. AO merely on account of credit entries appearing in the bank account of the appellant. The appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at the time of hearing. PRAYER The appellant therefore respectfully prays that :- 1. The addition of Rs. 6,25,00,000/- (out of total addition of Rs. 19,02,83,690/-) account of credit entries in the bank account of the appellant confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 2. Such and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may justify.” 31.1 The assessee has also taken the following Additional Grounds of Appeal: “CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT DATED 17.02.2016 1. That the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the legal position that while exercising the powers conferred u/s 153A/153C of the Act, the addition in the case of assessments u/s 153A/153C has to be made only on the basis of incriminating material. The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central IT, New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC). 2. That the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate the legal position that re-agitating the concluded issues without any incriminating material found in the course of search relating thereto cannot be considered in proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT M. Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd [2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat) 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal. Department’s Appeal IT(SS)A No. 35/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 32 32. The Department has taken the 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 law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.12,77,83,690/- in respect of credits from M/s Siddham Finance, Shri Sanjay M Sutaria, Dharmen M. Sutaria and Saral Management & Consultancy out of total addition of Rs.19,02,83,690/- made on account of addition of unexplained credits in the bank. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,000/-( wrongly mentioned as Rs.5,00,000/-) made by the AO on account of addition of unexplained cash deposits in bank. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.” 33. These are cross appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue against the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee is in appeal before us against the additions which have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), whereas the Revenue, is in appeal before us against the additions in respect of which the relief has been granted by Ld. CIT(Appeals). The background in the case is similar to the facts of the case pertaining to assessment year 2009-10, wherein search under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Barter group on 04-12-2014 and the assessing officer on the basis of certain incriminating material found during the course of search, asked the assessee to file return of income for the impugned assessment years from assessment year 2009-10 to 2014-15. The present appeal relates to assessment year 2012-13. The assessee had filed a return of income in response to notice u/s 153C read with 153A of the Act declaring a meagre income of Rs. 14/- only despite being engaged in the business of real estate development and total credit amounting to ₹19,02,83,690 coming in his bank account, during the impugned year under consideration. I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 33 34. The background of the case remains largely as previous years. Upon reviewing the bank statement of the assessee associated with City Union Bank Limited (Account No. 122164), the Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee received credits amounting to ₹18,82,83,690, which were subsequently transferred out of the account. Consequently, AO issued a show cause notice on December 19, 2016, requesting the assessee to clarify whether these transactions were reflected in their books of accounts. The AO also sought proof of the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors, and the genuineness of the transactions, as mandated by Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. In response, the assessee submitted a document on December 21, 2016, referencing the funds credited to the City Union Bank account as detailed in an accompanying exhibit. This exhibit listed various creditors, including Siddham Finance, Green Fire Agri Commodities, Salma M. Meghrajji, Mohammediqbal G. Meghrajji, Sanjay M. Sutaria, Dharmen M. Sutaria, and Saral Management & Consultancy, along with the corresponding amounts attributed to each. The Assessing Officer observed that while the assessee provided confirmations, bank statements, and income tax returns for some creditors, substantial gaps existed in the documentation. For example, Siddham Finance's credit of ₹6,82,83,690 was noted, but the assessee failed to provide adequate supporting documentation, such as profit and loss statements or balance sheets, to substantiate the claim regarding the source of funds. Similarly, the Assessing Officer observed there was a lack of documentation for the amounts attributed to Green Fire Agri Commodities, where no PAN or address was provided, indicating insufficient substantiation. Further examination of the transactions revealed discrepancies in the accounts of other creditors as well. For instance, while Salma M. Meghrajji and Mohammediqbal G. Meghrajji provided PAN confirmations, the absence of bank statements or ITRs raised questions about the genuineness of these transactions. The case with Sanjay M. Sutaria showed an opening balance of I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 34 ₹2,00,00,000, but again, the lack of supporting evidence for the transactions questioned the legitimacy of the claimed credits. The review of transactions from Dharmen M. Sutaria and Saral Management & Consultancy similarly uncovered a failure to provide necessary documentation, such as balance sheets or evidence of prior loans. Overall, the AO concluded that the evidence submitted by the assessee did not sufficiently establish the identity of the creditors, the genuineness of the transactions, or the creditworthiness of the entities involved. As a result of these findings, the AO held that the total credit amounting to ₹19,02,83,690 remained unexplained. Consequently, this amount was deemed to be the income of the assessee for the year in accordance with Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee was found to have concealed particulars of their income. 35. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that that Siddham Finance is a proprietary concern of Sanjay M. Sutaria, who, along with Dharmen M. Sutaria and Saral Management & Consultancy (linked to Mahendra Sutaria), had been assessed by the same AO. This connection was presented as evidence to establish the identities of these creditors, thereby supporting the appellant's claims regarding the genuineness of the transactions. Moreover, any cash deposits that were previously unexplained in the accounts of Sanjay and Dharmen Sutaria had been disclosed during a prior search, documented in their income tax returns filed under Section 153A of the Act, and had been duly taxed. Ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the books of accounts and bank statements were available to the AO during the assessment, yet no adverse findings were made regarding the appellant’s claims. As a result, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the additions totalling ₹12,77,83,690—which encompassed the amounts from Siddham Finance, Sanjay M. Sutaria, Dharmen M. Sutaria, and Saral Management & Consultancy—were not justified and subsequently I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 35 deleted these additions. However, with respect to the credits from other creditors, namely Green Fire Agri Commodities, Salma M. Meghrajji, and Mohammed Iqbal G. Meghrajji, Ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the assessee was unable to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions or the creditworthiness of these creditors. Despite the submission of documentation during both the assessment and appellate proceedings, the evidence provided was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the AO. Consequently, the additions related to these three creditors, amounting to ₹6,25,00,000, were confirmed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). 36. The assessee and Department are in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), partly allowing the appeal of the assessee. We observe that the additions made by the assessing officer and the relief granted by Ld. CIT(Appeals) are largely on similar lines as in case of assessment year 2010-11. Accordingly, in interest of justice, in view of our detailed discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(Appeals) for de novo consideration. The learned DR has also not objected to the matter being restored to the file of Ld. CIT(Appeals) for his consideration. Our observations with regards to legal arguments/technical plea taken by the counsel for the assessee has been dealt in the foregoing part of the order, and the same is not reproduced here again for the sake of brevity. 37. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Department are allowed for statistical purposes. Assessment year 2013-14, IT(SS)A 144/Ahd/2019 38. The assessee has taken the following Grounds of Appeal: I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 36 “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the appeal partly. He ought to have allowed the appeal fully in accordance with the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before him. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,05,000/- as made by the Ld. AO on account of cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant. 2. The appellant respectfully submits that the Ld. AO has failed to issue any specific show cause notice to the appellant prior to making the addition. The appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at the time of hearing. PRAYER The appellant therefore respectfully prays that :- 1. The addition of Rs. 10,05,000/- on account of cash deposit in the bank account of the appellant confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 2. Such and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may justify.” 38.1 The assessee has also taken the following Additional Grounds of Appeal: “CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT DATED 17.02.2016 1. That the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the legal position that while exercising the powers conferred u/s 153A/153C of the Act, the addition in the case of assessments u/s 153A/153C has to be made only on the basis of incriminating material. The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central IT, New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC). 2. That the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate the legal position that re-agitating the concluded issues without any incriminating material found in the course of search relating thereto cannot be considered in proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT V. Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd [2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat) I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 37 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” 39. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee is in appeal before us against the additions which have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The background in the case is similar to the facts of the case pertaining to assessment year 2009-10, wherein search under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Barter group on 04-12-2014 and the assessing officer, on the basis of certain incriminating material found during the course of search, asked the assessee to file return of income for the impugned assessment years from assessment year 2009-10 to 2014-15. The present appeal relates to assessment year 2013-14. The assessee had filed a return of income in response to notice u/s 153C read with 153A of the Act declaring a meagre income of Rs. 16/- only despite being engaged in the business of real estate development and total credits of ₹27,05,000 appearing in his bank account, during the impugned year under consideration. 40. The background of the case remains largely as previous years. During the assessment of the assessee's bank account (Account No. 122164) with City Union Bank Limited, Ahmedabad, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee received a credit of ₹17,00,000 during the year in question. This amount was transferred from the same account, prompting the Assessing Officer (AO) to issue a show cause notice on December 19, 2016, requesting the assessee to clarify whether these transactions were recorded in the books of accounts. The AO also sought evidence regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor, as well as the genuineness of the transaction in accordance with Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. In response, the assessee submitted a document on December 21, 2016, which indicated that the fund credited to the bank account was linked to Saral Management & I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 38 Consultancy, which was confirmed through a bank statement and income tax return (ITR). Upon reviewing the confirmation provided, the AO noted an opening balance of ₹7,00,00,000 as of April 1, 2011, and ₹2,12,00,000 as of April 1, 2012, attributed to the assessee. However, the AO found that the opening balance from the prior year had not been substantiated as required during the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13, nor had the assessee provided a balance sheet or profit and loss account for the current year. The AO rejected the assessee's assertion that the identity of the parties and the genuineness of the transactions were satisfactorily established, particularly since no adverse findings were made regarding the banking channels utilized. Upon a thorough examination, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to adequately explain the opening balances in the accounts, nor could the details of various transactions and their sources be clarified. Moreover, discrepancies between the submitted exhibits and confirmations further complicated the situation. The AO held that the source of the credited amount in the bank account remained unexplained, and the assessee could not substantiate the identity of the parties involved or the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Consequently, the amount of ₹17,00,000 credited to the bank account was deemed unexplained income under Section 69 of the Act, leading to an addition of this amount to the assessee's income. Additionally, the AO observed that cash deposits totalling ₹10,05,000 were credited in the bank account, for which the assessee had not provided any explanation regarding their nature, source, or treatment in income reporting. This amount was also treated as unexplained income by the Assessing Officer, leading to a further addition under the same provisions. Ultimately, the total additions made by the Assessing Officer amounted to ₹27,05,000, which were subject to penalties due to the lack of clarity and substantiation provided by the assessee. I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 39 41. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. With regards to the first ground of appeal raised by the assessee pertaining to the addition of ₹17,00,000, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held the necessary books of accounts and bank statements were available to the AO, and there were no adverse findings noted in the assessment order regarding these submissions. Consequently, the appeal regarding the ₹17,00,000 addition was upheld, and this amount was deleted from the assessed income. With regards to the second ground of appeal for the addition of ₹10,05,000, which was characterized by the AO as unexplained cash deposits in the bank account, Ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the assessee could not provide sufficient documentation or proof regarding the source of these cash deposits during both the assessment and appellate proceedings. Therefore, the addition of ₹10,05,000 was confirmed, and this ground of appeal was dismissed. 42. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid addition confirmed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). 43. We observe that the additions made by the assessing officer and the relief granted by Ld. CIT(Appeals) is largely on similar lines as in case of assessment year 2010-11. Accordingly, in interest of justice, in view of our detailed discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(Appeals) for de novo consideration, since the assessee did not cause appearance before Ld. CIT(Appeals) to provide detailed explanation and supporting documents in support of the contention. We observe that the present year is an unabated assessment year, for which the time period for completion of assessment had not yet expired and therefore, there is no legal requirement that the additions should be restricted to only I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 40 incriminating material found in course of search. Further, regarding legal contentions raised by the Counsel for the assessee, our observations with regards to assessment year 2010-11 will apply to the balance years as well, wherein we have observed that the present / impugned assessments have been framed on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search, upon preparation of a detailed \"Satisfaction Note\" wherein the entire modus operandi was discussed and subsequently notice u/s 153C read with 153A of the Act was issued asking the assessee to file return of income. The learned DR has also not objected to the matter being restored to the file of Ld. CIT(Appeals) for his consideration. 44. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes for AY 2013-14. Assessment year 2014-15 (IT(ss) 145/Ahd/2019 and IT(ss) 36/Ahd/2019) ITSSA 145/Ahd/2019 Assessee’s Appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 45. The assessee has taken the following Grounds of Appeal: “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the appeal partly. He ought to have allowed the appeal fully in accordance with the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before him. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 8,80,03,050/- as made by the Ld. AO merely on account of credit entries appearing in the bank account of the appellant. The appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at the time of hearing. PRAYER The appellant therefore respectfully prays that :- I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 41 1. The addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- (out of total addition of Rs. 8,80,03,050/- on account of credit entries in the bank account of the appellant confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 2. Such and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may justify.” 45.1 The assessee has also taken the following Additional Grounds of Appeal:- “CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT DATED 17.02.2016 1. That the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the legal position that while exercising the powers conferred u/s 153A/153C of the Act, the addition in the case of assessments u/s 153A/153C has to be made only on the basis of incriminating material. The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central IT, New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC). 2. That the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate the legal position that re-agitating the concluded issues without any incriminating material found in the course of search relating thereto cannot be considered in proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT V. Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd [2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat) 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” IT(SS)A 36/Ahd/2019 Department’s Appeal A.Y. 2014-15 46. The Department has taken the following Grounds of Appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ClT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.8,63,03,050/- in respect of Siddham Finance out of total addition of Rs.8,80,03,050/- made on account of addition of unexplained credits in the bank. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ClT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.” I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 42 47. These are cross appeal filed by the Assessee and the Revenue against the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee is in appeal before us against the additions which have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), whereas the Revenue, is in appeal before us against the additions in respect of which the relief has been granted by Ld. CIT(Appeals). The background in the case is similar to the facts of the case pertaining to assessment year 2009-10, wherein search under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Barter group on 04-12-2014 and the assessing officer on the basis of certain incriminating material found during the course of search, asked the assessee to file return of income for the impugned assessment years from assessment year 2009-10 to 2014-15. 48. The background of the case remains largely as previous years. The assessing officer has made certain additions on account of credits appearing in the bank accounts of the assessee. In the appeal filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(Appeals), he gave relief with respect to credits appearing from Siddham Finance, on similar lines as in previous years, while confirming the additions for the balance credits appearing in the bank account of the assessee. Both the assessee and Department are in appeal before us against the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), partly confirming the additions made in the hands of the assessee. 49. We observe that the additions made by the assessing officer and the relief granted by Ld. CIT(Appeals) is largely on similar lines as in case of assessment year 2010-11. Accordingly, in interest of justice, in view of our detailed discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(Appeals) for de novo consideration, since the assessee did not cause appearance before Ld. CIT(Appeals) to provide detailed I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 43 explanation and supporting documents in support of the contention. We observe that this is an unabated assessment year, for which the time period for completion of assessment had not yet expired and therefore, there is no legal requirement that the additions should be restricted to only incriminating material found in course of search. Further, regarding legal contentions raised by the Counsel for the assessee, our observations with regards to assessment year 2010-11 will apply to the balance years as well, wherein we have observed that the present / impugned assessments have been framed on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search, upon preparation of a detailed \"Satisfaction Note\" wherein the entire modus operandi was discussed and subsequently notice u/s 153C read with 153A of the Act was issued asking the assessee to file return of income. The learned DR has also not objected to the matter being restored to the file of Ld. CIT(Appeals) for his consideration. 50. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department and assessee are allowed for statistical purposes for AY 2014-15. IT(SS)A No. 146/Ahd/2019 (Assessee’s Appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 51. The assessee has taken the following Grounds of Appeal: “The Ld.CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal. He ought to have allowed the appeal fully in accordance with the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before him. 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 153C(1)(b) of the IT. Act,1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- as made by the Ld. AO merely on account of credit entries appearing in the bank account of the appellant. I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 44 The appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at the time of hearing. PRAYER The appellant therefore respectfully prays that :- 1. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 144 r.w.s 153C(1 )(b) of the Act may kindly be quashed. 2. The addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- on account of credit entries in the bank account of the appellant confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 3. Such and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may justify.” 51.1 The assessee has also taken the following Additional Grounds of Appeal: “CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT DATED 17.02.2016 1 . That the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the legal position that while exercising the powers conferred u/s 153A/153C of the Act, the addition in the case of assessments u/s 153A/153C has to be made only on the basis of incriminating material. The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central IT, New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC). 2. That the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate the legal position that re-agitating the concluded issues without any incriminating material found in the course of search relating thereto cannot be considered in proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT V. Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd [2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat) 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” 52. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal filed by the assessee are similar to the facts of earlier years. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- to the income of the assessee since the assessee was unable to explain the credit appearing as deposits in his bank account u/s. 69 of the Act. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations:- I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 45 “6. Facts of the case as mentioned in the assessment order have been carefully considered alongwith the Statement of Facts. The only effective ground of appeal is against the additions of Rs.60,00,000/- made by the AO considering the credits in the bank account as non-genuine. The assessee received credits from the following person :- Sr. No. Name Address PAN Amount Remarks 1 M.P. Cloth Agency 60,00,000 .... The appellant could not prove the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor by submitting sufficient documents during the assessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings. Hence, additions of 60,00,000 are confirmed. This ground of appeal is dismissed.” 53. We observe that the even for this year, the assessee did not cause appearance before the ld. CIT(A). Further, we observe that this is a case of unabated assessment year. The assessee has also filed application before us for adducing additional evidences in support of its claim. 54. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deno-vo consideration after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The CIT-D.R. also did not object to the matter being restored to the file of CIT(A) in the interest of justice. 55. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes for AY 2015-16. I.T(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36 & 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 Page No. DCIT vs. Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah & Ketankumar Surendrabhai Shah vs. DCIT 46 56. In the combined result, the IT(SS)A Nos. 33 to 36/Ahd/2019 filed by the Department and IT(SS)A Nos. 140 to 146/Ahd/2019 filed by assessee are all allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05-11-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad : Dated 05/11/2024 "