FOUR PILLAR COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,NASHIK, NASHIK

ITSSA 39/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Four Pillar Communications Pvt. Ltd., which was subjected to a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning its transactions with Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. and Sunil Hi-tech Engineering Ltd. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 153C based on the documents seized during the search. The primary contention was whether the notices and subsequent assessments were valid, given that the assessee was not the subject of the original search but was implicated through documents related to the search of another entity. The Tribunal found procedural lapses and lack of jurisdiction in the issuance of the notices, leading to the quashing of the assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669028 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Rajesh Kumar v. ACIT, Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, Super Malls Pvt Ltd Vs PCIT, K M Nagraj vs DCIT, Meghmani Organics Limited vs DCIT, Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijaybhai N Chandrani vs. CIT, CIT-ii vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation, CIT-iii, Pune Vs Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-14 v. Alag Securities (P.) Ltd, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-14, Mumbai v. M/s. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S AMOL KHAIRNAR; RAMNATH P MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVENDRA JAIN VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Document seized; Documents seized; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Loose papers; Validity of assessment; Application of stay; Bogus
• Section: 144; 142(1); 271(1)(c); 132; 153A; 131; 69C; 139; 133A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 Assessment years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 Four Pillar Communications Pvt. Ltd. C-304, Tara, Srishti Complex, Sakivihar Road, Powai, Mumbai – 400072 Vs. ACIT, Central Circle – 1, Nashik PAN: AAACF2418C (Appellant) (Respondent) IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 Assessment years : 2008-09 to 2010-11 ACIT, Central Circle – 1, Nashik Vs. Four Pillar Communications Pvt. Ltd. C-304, Tara, Srishti Complex, Sakivihar Road, Powai, Mumbai – 400072 PAN: AAACF2418C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain (virtual) Department by : S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT DR & Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 06-05-2025 Date of pronouncement : 25-06-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: IT(SS)A Nos.36/PUN/2022 to 38/PUN/2022 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A Nos.51/PUN/2022 to 53/PUN/2022 filed by the Revenue are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 31.03.2022 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune-12 relating to assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 respectively. 2 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A No.39/PUN/2022 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.03.2022 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune-12 relating to assessment year 2011-12. Since identical grounds have been raised by the assessee and the Revenue in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. First we take up IT(SS)A No.36/PUN/2022 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.51/PUN/2022 filed by the Revenue as the lead case. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of management of project for building of networks and turnkey solutions in telecom, allied project including HR support. It filed its original return of income u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) on 24.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs.26,80,587/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the Ashoka Group of cases on 20.04.2010 during which the case of the assessee was covered u/s 133A of the Act. A notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee on 17.09.2012 which was served on the assessee by speed post. The assessee vide letter dated 29.09.2012 requested for extension by one month to submit the return. However, the Assessing Officer granted the extension up to 23.10.2012. Despite such extension, no return of income was filed by the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 27.11.2012 which was served on the assessee by speed post. The assessee did not respond to the questionnaire for which again 3 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 another notice dated 09.01.2013 was issued to the assessee to make the submissions within a week‟s time in support of its claims. However, neither anybody attended nor any details submitted. However, vide letter dated 05.02.2013, the assessee submitted written details in tapal section which were received on 11.02.2013. There was no mention as regards the return of income nor any submission was filed as regards the earlier return in response to the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore, issued another questionnaire to the assessee on 15.03.2013 by speed post. Since the assessee did not file any response, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer noted that the original return filed does not show the nature of business or profession in which the assessee is engaged. The column of the return was left blank. However, in the subsequent years, he noted that the assessee is stated to have engaged in the business of management of project for building of networks and turnkey solutions in telecom, allied project including HR support. He observed that the financials of the assessee company for financial year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are as under: F.Y 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-11 Y.Ending 31/03/2006 31/03/2007 31/03/2008 31/03/2009 31/03/2010 31/03/2011 Sales 17842782 25121164 150470037 229223021 372642683 581108509 Cost 16996341 23707125 145048177 222252481 362277871 577056189 Profit 846440 1414039 5421860 6970540 10364812 4052320 Profit (%) 4.74387907 5.62887532 3.60328216 3.04094238 2.78143446 0.69734308 4 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 4. The Assessing Officer observed that during the course of search action conducted on Ashoka Buildcon Limited u/s 132 of the Act the seized document i.e. Annexure-A-3/32, page Nos.8 to 22 shows that Ashoka Buildcon Limited had vide work order dated 19.05.2008 allotted the work of four laneing of Jaora-Naygaon Highway, Madhya Pradesh and Highway of Rajnandgaon-Chhatisgarh to the assessee i.e. M/s. Four Pillars Communication Pvt. Ltd. The total cost of work shown was at Rs.10,47,15,000/- for Jaora-Naygaon Highway and Rs.16,10,05,000/- for Rajnandgaon Highway. He observed that during the course of survey in the case of the assessee it was found that M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. has debited expenses for execution of sub-contracts awarded to M/s. Four Pillar Communication Pvt. Ltd, the details of which are as under: F.Y. 2008-09 – Rs.7.45 Crores F.Y. 2009-10 – Rs.2.27 Crores Total - Rs.9.72 Crores 5. The Assessing Officer further noted that an unconnected search had been conducted in case of M/s. Sunil Hi-tech Engineering Ltd., Nagpur by issuing commission to DDI(Inv.), Mumbai. In the said operation it was found that M/s. Sunil Hi-tech Engineering Ltd. had awarded contracts to M/s. Four Pillars Communication Pvt. Ltd. During the course of survey carried out in the case of the assessee on 22.12.2009 a statement was recorded u/s 133A of the Act by ADIT(Inv.), Unit-IX, Mumbai wherein the Managing Director Mr. Kailash Sharma in reply to question No.2 of the statement recorded stated as under: 5 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 \"The payment was made by Sunil Hi Tech Engg Ltd Nagpur to the companies Four Pillar Communication P Ltd and M.s Indi Infra and Elements P Ltd with an intention to get cash in return for the payment made. The cash was partly returned back to them by us directly through our proprietorship concerns DMI Infracon and Konark Steel and the balance was given to Sunil HiTech by way of cash withdrawals done by the subcontractors Vishnu enterprises, Creative Rex, ABC Corporation M.B Mines etc. In other words the payments by cheque by the assessee was returned by it to M/s. Sunil HiTech Engg P Lid in cash.” 6. The Assessing Officer, therefore, noted that the assessee in its own admission has stated that it was giving bogus bills, and was returning the monies it had received through banking channel in cash. The Assessing Officer further noted from the documents submitted by the assessee along with letter dated 05.03.2013 that the assessee had also transactions with Indi Infra & elements P. Ltd. during the block period. M/s. Indi Infra & element P. Ltd. is an associate concern which, as per the statement recorded of Shri Kailash Sharma, had returned the cash for the cheques received by it from M/s. Sunil Hi-Tech Engineering Ltd. He noted that the assessee company and M/s. Indi Infra & element P Ltd. are associate concerns and the said company was being reported as the assessee company‟s debtor in the following years: 1. A.Y. 2008-09 (31/03/2008) Rs.3614557 2. A.Y. 2009-10 (31/03/2009) Rs.21003040 3. A.Y. 2010-11 (31/03/2010) Rs.34855810 7. He further noted from the statement recorded on 22.12.2009 that Shri Kailash Sharma in his statement had stated that the transaction for providing entry to Sunil Hi-Tech Engineering Ltd. and Indi Infra & elements P Ltd was done to increase the turnover of the companies and not for any sort of income tax evasion. 6 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 After considering the modus operandi adopted by the assessee and in absence of any cooperation from the side of the assessee the Assessing Officer held that the assessee has accommodated Indi Infra & Elements P Ltd by providing it with cash amounting to Rs.36,14,557/-, therefore he added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 69C of the Act by observing as under: “08. In view of the discussion it is held that the assessee has supplied the following corporates cash for money received through cheques/ through Banking channel, to achieve this objective, the assessee is creating fictitious entries in its books of accounts. In view of the discussion, it is held that the assessee has accommodated Indi Infra & Elements P Ltd by providing it with cash amounting to Rs. 36,14,557/-. As per the discussion above and assessee's own admission, the assessee is held to have received cheques for Rs. 36,14,557/-, for which it has generated equivalent cash by debiting its books with bogus expenditure on account of labour job / job work. The amount of Rs.36,14,557/- is therefore treated as Unexplained expenditure and held as income under section 69C of the I.T. Act 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act 1961 is initiated.” 8. The Assessing Officer similarly in absence of any supporting evidence, disallowed an amount of Rs.124,47,580/- under the head „Transportation charges‟ and made addition of Rs.45,30,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of share application money received for which the assessee could not substantiate the identity and capacity of the share applicants / creditors and genuineness of the transaction. The Assessing Officer accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,32,72,724/-. 9. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act is not in accordance with law since there was no search in the case 7 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 of the assessee. Certain additional evidences were also filed before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate the share application money received. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 1.133% of receipts from Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. and Indi Infra & elements P. Ltd. and deleted the addition in respect of transportation expenditure of Rs.1,24,47,580/-. He also gave telescoping benefit of Rs.7,02,014/- to the assessee. However, he upheld the validity of assessment proceedings initiated u/s 153C of the Act. 10. So far as the validity of assessment u/s 153A of the Act is concerned, he upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “4.2.2 The AO issued notice u/s 153A of the Act while initiating the proceedings though he has mentioned in the assessment order about issuing the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The appellant contended that no search action u/s 132 was conducted upon the appellant and thus notice u/s 153A was bad in law. The appellant further argued that though notice was issued u/s 153A, order was passed u/s 153C of the Act. The confusion in this case was that, under which section the AO intended to issue the notice. The AO, while disposing the stay of demand vide letter dated 27.06.2013, clarified that mention of section 153A was a typographical error. The AO submitted in the remand report that proper satisfaction was recorded u/s 153C of the Act on 17.09.2012, before issuing of notice. The appellant alleged that the satisfaction was likely recorded afterward the issue of notice. The claim of the appellant is in nature of allegation without any basis. The appellant had not filed any evidence in support of this allegation. On perusal of the documents filed, it is noticed that satisfaction was recorded by the AO 17.09.2012. Therefore, it is clear that the intention of the AO was to issue notice u/s 153C of the Act but it was not mentioned in the notice. The same is evident from the fact the order was passed subsequently u/s 153C of the Act and not u/s 153A. Further, it is seen from the provisions of the Act that the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess the case of a third party, which was not searched u/s 132 of the Act but material related to him was found during the search, from the provisions of section 153C of the Act and thereafter, the AO of the third party shall proceed against such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, after recording the satisfaction in this regard. Therefore, the AO gets the jurisdiction u/s 153C but thereafter, the notice as well as the assessment is to be done in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act However, to 8 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 distinguish the same, in such cases, generally AO makes reference of both sections in the notice. In this regard, it is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore Bench has observed that in the case of Rajesh Kumar. v. ACIT (2019) 175 ITD 734 (Bang) (Trib.) that in such cases, the notice has to be issued by Assessing Officer to other person u/s 153A of the Act although such Assessing Officer gets jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act. Thus in my considered view, the typographical omission made by the AO in the notice by not mentioning the 153C section does not invalidate the assessment proceedings initiated u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Further, all the aspects were followed by the AO by recording the satisfaction prior to issue of notice. Therefore, the omission, if any, is covered within the provision of section 2928 of the Act. Moreover, the AO was given opportunities during the assessment proceedings and he even responded to the same, though partially, and never tried to make any such grievance before the AO. On the other hand, the appellant was not cooperative and did not even file the return of income in response to the notice. Be that as it may, it is seen that the proceedings were initiated u/s 153C of the Act and as per the Act, further issue of notice and assessment/reassessment of income of the other person is to be done in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. Therefore, the contention made by the appellant in this regard is found to be not correct.” 11. Similarly, he held that the Assessing Officer correctly initiated the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act by observing as under: “4.3.2 I have considered the contentions raised by the appellant. The main argument given by the appellant is that work orders in the name of the appellant seized from the premise of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd were not legally seized, as these documents cannot be seized, as it was part of the books of accounts of the Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. Thus, the appellant's conclusion was that proceedings u/s 153C of the Act were initiated on the basis of illegally seized papers making it null and void. I find the contention raised by the appellant to be incorrect. The appellant was found to be involved in providing accommodation entries prior to search. During the search on Ashoka Buildcon Ltd, work orders in the name of the appellant were found. It is relevant to mention here that in the case of Ashoke Buildcon Ltd. group, evidences were found, wherein amounts paid to sub- contractors were received back and they have approached the Income Tax Settlement Commission for settlement of issues, including this issue. Similarly, as mentioned above, the appellant also admitted of providing accommodation entries in another case. The modus operandi of accommodation entry is layering of transaction through books of accounts of various entities to bring back unaccounted cash or to inflate expenses to reduce profit. Therefore, in the case of either entry provider or beneficiary, all the transactions will be recorded in the books of accounts. It is the very nature of an accommodation entry. In view of the above background, it was incorrect to the part of the appellant to claim that work orders issued to such entry provider cannot be impounded and the appellant is trying to make an issue where none is there.” 9 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 12. So far as the argument of the assessee that the seized materials does not belong to the assessee is concerned, he also rejected the ground raised by the assessee by observing as under: “4.4.2 The appellant contended on this issue that seized paper, on the basis of which the assessment was initiated u/s 153C of the Act, does not belong to it within the provisions of section 153C of the Act. The appellant contended that the documents seized from the premise of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. in the form of work orders was maintained by Ashoka Buildcon Limited for its own purposes and neither Ashoka Buildcon nor the appellant had claimed that these seized papers belong to the appellant. The appellant contended that at most these papers can be said to be related to the appellant, which is not enough for initiating proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. the appellant in support of its cause relied on the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Meghmani Organics Limited, wherein it is held that, record maintained by a person for his own purpose though referable to the assessee cannot be said to be belonging to the assessee within the meaning of section 153C of the Act. The appellant also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijaybhai N Chandrani (231 CTR 474). On perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, it is noticed that in that case, the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act was initiated on the basis of loose papers found during the search action u/s 132 of the Act on the premise of the person searched. Considering the nature being loose paper and the contents therein, the Hon'ble High Court opined that it can not be said that those loose papers belonged to any third party. In the instant case of the appellant, there was no loose paper as such containing any noting, but it is the work order in the name of the appellant, which was duly signed by the appellant. Reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (special Civil Application Nos. 13635, 13636 & 13643 of 2012, judgment dated 24/12/2012), wherein the decision of Vijaybhai N Chandrani was considered. The Hon'ble Court opined that in case of sale deed found at the possession of the searched person, the names mentioned in such document, as parties to the impugned transaction, was covered within the meaning of 'belong to' as per the provisions of section 153C of the Act. In the impugned case, the document impounded was work order between the appellant and Ashoka Buildcon Limited. The appellant entered into an agreement and claimed to have executed works for Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim that these documents do not belong to him. Only because the document was found in the possession of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd., does not make the document exclusive to Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. as if the appellant was not a party to the agreement or either Ashoka Buildcon Ltd or the appellant has claimed that no such agreement was signed between them. The fact remains that the work orders exists and appellant is a party to it. Considering the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra), the impugned document belonged to the appellant. This issue is thus decided against the appellant. 10 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 4.5.2 The appellant contended that under the provision of section 153C of the Act, satisfaction of the AO of the searched person was required to be recorded before handing over of the seized material. The appellant argued that the order-sheet noting which contained the satisfaction of the AO was part of the record of the appellant's case and no such satisfaction was recorded in the case of Ashoka Buildcon which is the person searched. The appellant also argued that in the satisfaction recorded finding of an unrelated search was used, which has no connection with Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. The appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Super Malls Pvt Lts (C.A. No. 2006- 2007 of 2020 decided on 05.03.2020) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Pepsi Food Pvt Ltd (W.P.(C) 415,568,570,571, 575 & 576/2014 decided on 07.08.2014) in support of the same. The appellant supplied emphasis on recording of satisfaction of the AO of the searched person that seized document belonged to person other than the searched person. The appellant claimed that in absence of finding regarding seized paper belonging to the appellant the satisfaction recorded by the AO was not valid. The contentions raised by the appellant have been considered. In the instant case, the AO of the searched person and the other person are the same. In the case of M/s Super Malls (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in case, where the AO of the searched person and the AO of the other person is the same, it is sufficient for the AO to record in the satisfaction note that the documents seized belonged to the other person. Therefore, there is no requirement of recording of satisfaction by the searched person's AO in this case. The only requirement is that the AO should have arrived at such satisfaction before issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act. On perusal of the order-sheet noting, it is noticed that the AO has mentioned that documents inventoried at Annexure A-3/32, page no 8 to 22 was seized from the office of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd, which was a work order. The AO noted that as per these documents, Four Pillar Communication was awarded contract for the work of four laning of Jaora-Naygaon Highway,m Madhya Pradesh and Highway of Rajnandgaon-Chhatisgarh. These two documents belonged to the appellant as held in earlier paragraph in para 4.4.2. Meanwhile the AO was in possession of information regarding the appellant of indulging in providing accommodation entries. This information was unearthed during survey on the appellant in connection with another search action in the case of Sunil Hitech Engineering Ltd, prior to search in Ashoka Buildcon. The MD of appellant company, Shri Kailash Sharma, on 23.12.2009, admitted of providing accommodation entries to Sunil Hitech Engineering Ltd. the AO had taken cognizance of this also in the present proceedings. If the contention of the appellant is accepted, that would mean that for any such instance or information or material, separate proceedings are to be initiated, which may be u/s 153A, 153C or 148 of the Act and for multiple information/ material from different sources, even multiple proceedings u/s 153C or 148 of the Act are to be initiated for the same year. In fact, that would be harassment of the assessee also and that will create unnecessary burden for both the assessee and the Department. This can never be the intention of the legislature to have multiple proceedings for the same assessee for the same year at the same time. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the AO was correct to record the finding of another search/survey proceeding in the satisfaction note to take care of 11 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 the incriminating material / information received in respect of transactions related with M/s Sunil Hi-tech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. without initiating a parallel proceeding for same years and for the same assessee. Also, it can never be the intention of the legislature to let go of any wrong doing, causing a loss to the exchequer only because the information was not unearthed during that search but stems from some other source or any other search, or to create multiple parallel proceedings for the same period involved. It was never an intention of the law makers to ignore any new information and compel the AO to turn a blind eye to it. The information in this case, was not received from any third party, but it was received from the MD of the appellant itself. Therefore, considering all these facts, I find the contentions raised by the appellant to be incorrect and hereby rejected.” 13. So far as the argument of the assessee that no incriminating material was found and the assessment year is unabated assessment is concerned, he also rejected the same by observing as under: 4.6.2 The appellant contended that the impugned A.Y. being unabated assessment year, no addition can be made in absence of incriminating material. As mentioned above, the appellant was found to be involved in providing accommodation entries prior to search. During the search on Ashoka Buildcon Ltd, work orders in the name of the appellant were found. It was also gathered that in the case of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. group, evidences were found, wherein amounts paid to sub- contractors were received back and they have approached the Income Tax Settlement Commission for settlement of issues, including this issue and also offered income on that account. Similarly, as mentioned above, the appellant also admitted of providing accommodation entries in another case. The modus operandi of accommodation entry is layering of transaction through books of accounts of various entities to bring back unaccounted cash or to inflate expenses to reduce profit. Therefore, in the case of either entry provider or beneficiary, all the transactions will be recorded in the books of accounts. It is the very nature of an accommodation entry. In view of the above background, it was incorrect to the part of the appellant to claim that work orders issued to such entry provider did not indicate any incriminating material and therefore, this contention is rejected. The appellant also contended that the assessment had to be contained to the findings of the Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. But as held in Para 4.5.2 above, the AO can use other available information gathered from other searches or sources also, while making the assessment and for each such information, there need not be separate proceeding at the same time for each such information leading to multiple parallel proceedings. As noted above, even the information was not from any third party but the admission of the appellant itself. Therefore, it was incorrect to claim that no incriminating material existed in case of the appellant and this contention raised by the appellant is thus rejected.” 12 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 14. As regards the grounds challenging the validity of assessment in absence of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is concerned, he also rejected the same by observing as under: “4.7.2 The appellant contended that assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act and not u/s 153C of the Act and therefore, in absence of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the assessment completed u/s 144 was invalid. The contention raised by the appellant was not correct. In para 4.2.2 of this order, it was held that the proceeding was initiated and completed u/s 153C of the Act. The mandatory approval u/s 153D was also obtained from the Range-head, before passing the order u/s 153C of the Act. Also in the last line of assessment order, AO had written that the order was passed u/s 144 rws 153C of the Act. Further, since the appellant had not filed return of income in response to notice issued u/s 153C/142(1), there was no question of issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Further in A.Y. 2011-12, where the order was passed u/s 144 rws 153B, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the earlier AO on 08.05.2012 and the appellant had also not denied this fact and therefore, the proceeding completed u/s 144 rws 153B of the Act does not suffer from any infirmity. Further, the appellant had not submitted all the information required by the AO to complete the assessment, including the production of the books of account with supporting evidence and the letter dated 15.03.2013 was not even responded, which compelled the AO to pass the assessment orders u/s 144 read with section 153C/153B of the Act. Therefore, these contentions raised by the appellant are incorrect. Thus, this issue is decided against the appellant.” 15. So far as the addition of Rs.36,14,557/- added by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained expenditure is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee by observing as under: “5.2 I have considered the facts of the case. The AO made addition of Rs. 36,14,557/- being the amount of receivable appearing in the Balance Sheet of appellant from M/s Indi Infra & Elements Pvt. Ltd (IIEPL). The appellant contended that the impugned figures is in nature of debit balance, therefore, the AO's contention of receiving payments in cheque and debiting bogus expenditure is logically inconsistent. The appellant further contended that provisions of section 69C can only be invoked when sources of funds of expenditure incurred was not explained, which was not the case here. These facts along with submissions filed were forwarded to the AO for verification. In the remand report dated 20.02.2014, the AO submitted as under: 13 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 \"4.24 Ground no. 9, para no 12 of letter dated 27.11.2013. In this ground the assesses has objected to the disallowance made under section 69 of the Act Rs. 36,14,557/- The facts of the assessee's admission to accounting of the bogus entries made in its regular books of account and the other factors taken into consideration while making this addition have been brought out in detail in the paragraphs numbered 04 through 08 of the order of assessment under appeal Also, as mentioned in the stated paragraphs of the order of assessment, there is sufficient basis of making the concerned assumption. The assessee has apparently not perused the stated paragraphs in contending that the source of incurring expenditure to defray the debt is not in doubt. The doubt in the source of making the payment based on the assessee's admissions to entering into similar transactions along with the said M/s Indi Infra & Elements Private Limited in respect of the contracts entered into by the assesses company, admittedly in the case of M/s Sunil HiTech Engineers Limited. The assessee can now not be allowed to go back on the depositions in a statement recorded on oath. The addition made is therefore not only logical but also in line with the provisions of the section under which the same are made.\" 5.3 The remand report submitted by the AO was forwarded to the appellant for comments. The appellant commented as under \"4.24 Ground No.9 : Appellant fails to understand the report of A.O. on the submissions of appellant on Ground No. 9. In the opinion of appellant they lack clarity. In fact A.O has not commented para wise on the submissions of appellant. No clarification is given by him how receipt of cheque has resulted into debit balance. The comments in the assessment order as well as in the remand report are not comprehensible”. 5.4 I have considered the argument given by the appellant. Before coming to the contentions raised by the appellant, let us revisit the facts gathered during search action in the case of M/s Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. and the survey action on the appellant and IIEPL & Sunil Hi Tech Engineering Ltd, which are summarized below: i) Commission was issued to DDIT(Inv), Mumbai by the DDIT(Inv), Nagpur to ascertain genuineness of subcontractor payments made by Sunil Hi Tech Engineering Ltd to Four Pillar Communications Pvt Ltd and Indi Infra & Elements Pvt. Ltd. ii) Registered office address of IIEPL was a residential place under repair at the time of survey, no business could be conducted from that place, and warrant for survey could not be executed. The place was occupied by Smt Amrita Vivek Mishra, who is daughter of Shri Kailash Sharma. iii) Director of IIEPL was Smt Padma Sharma, wife of Shri Kailash Sharma. Another director was Vivek Mishra, son-in-law of Shri Kailash Sharma. 14 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 iv) Shri Kailash Sharma admitted that he is authorized signatory of IIEPL v) Shri Kailash Sharma was the director of the appellant company, M/s Four Pillar Communication Pvt Ltd and also controlled IIEPL along with Konark Steel and DMI Infracon vi) During survey at 610, Damji Trade Center, Vidyavihar(W), Mumbai, Shri Kailash Sharma submitted that books of accounts of the appellant were kept there. Books of account of Konark Steel and DMI Infracon were in Delhi with auditor Amit Jain, and for books of accounts of IIEPL, it was submitted that these 'may be lying with Auditor, Shri Shyam Sundar Sharma, in Kolkata'. vii) A survey action was conducted on 22/12/2009, wherein it was found that the books were updated till August for sales and till May 2009 for expenses. This points out that receipts were entered first and then expenses, that too after a long period of time. However, the documents submitted in the form of ledgers show otherwise. viii) As per books cash in hand of the appellant was Rs 2,25,11,364.91/-whereas of only Rs. 350/- was found. ix) Shri Kailash Sharma, confirmed that the appellant along with IIEPL had provided accommodation entries to Sunil Hi Tech Pvt Ltd for the project at Barmer. However, he denied of providing accommodation entry for other projects x) Shri Kailash Sharma admitted that the following subcontractors were used by the appellant in the Barmer Project which did not execute any work in 1) Vishnu Enterprises 2) ABC Corporation 3) Creative Rex 4) M B Mines 5) Vignesh Mines. Incidentally the subcontractors ABC Corporation and Creative Rex were also used to infuse share application money of Rs. 30 lakhs in the appellant company xi) A MoU between the appellant and Amit Agarwal was found during the course of search at Sunil Hi Tech, wherein it was agreed that Four Pillar Communication Ltd and Indi Infra & Elements Pvt Ltd would provide accommodation entry to Sunil Hi Tech for a commission of 1.133%. It was also agreed the Kalisah Sharma would create subcontractors for this purposes, names of which are mentioned in the above paragraph. xii) It was agreed in the MoU that appellant would arrange minimum cash of Rs. 60 lakhs and the same will be delivered in lieu of cheque payment. It was also agreed that in case of any contingencies during movement of cash Shri Kailash Sharma is responsible to show that the cash was duly accounted for and was moving for purpose of payment of salary or wages. xiii) During the search on Ashoka Buildcon Ltd, work orders in the name of the appellant were found. 15 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 xiv) It was also gathered that in the case of Ashoke Buildcon Ltd. group, evidences were found, wherein amounts paid to sub-contractors were received back and they have approached the Income Tax Settlement Commission for settlement of issues, including the issue of sub-contractors and also offered income on that account. v) Neither during the assessment proceedings nor the appellant proceedings, any evidence of doing any actual work for the parties under consideration could be provided by the appellant. 5.5 From the above facts, it is clear that the appellant was indulging in providing accommodation entries. Now the contention is whether it was only limited to the Barmer, as admitted by the appellant or extended to other projects also. The appellant did not file any submission regarding execution of work either during statement or during the appellate proceeding. At the time of survey, the books of accounts were also not available for all the concerns. In the books which were available, there were inconsistencies with cash in hand as per books and the cash available at the premise, the books were also not updated for more than 7 months. The place of business of IIEPL was found to be residential house and no business was conducted from there. Shri Kailash Sharma was not exactly able to tell, where the books of IIEPL were, and he tried to evade this issue by saying that it may be lying in Kolkata with the auditor. Considering the factual inconsistencies, the involvement of appellant in arranging accommodation entries apart from Bermer cannot be ruled out. Also, a signed document was found, wherein it was agreed that accommodation entries were arranged for a commission of Rs. 1.133% of the bill amount. It was also the finding of the survey that the appellant was acting as an agent for providing accommodation entries for other concerns for commission. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant has failed to prove that these transactions were genuine and any actual work was done, which establishes that the transaction under consideration were accommodation entries only, as were the transaction related to Barmer, which were admitted by the appellant itself as accommodation entries. Therefore, these transaction with these 3 parties i.e. IIEPL, Ashoka Buildcon and Sunil Hi Tech Engineers Limited, were nothing but the accommodation entries provided by the appellant to these parties. 5.6 Further, from the facts of the case, admission of the director of the appellant company as well the MOU found, it is clear that the appellant was not the final beneficiary, but it was only involved in providing accommodation entries. In fact, it is also the finding of the AO but he has taken a view that corresponding expenses for these receipts shown by the appellant were bogus and therefore, the total receipts were added to the income of the appellant. But the receipts as well as expenses for these transactions are to be considered as bogus for the accommodation entries for the entry provider and the whole amount can be added only in the hands of the beneficiary. It was not the finding of the AO that the appellant was actual beneficiary and as discussed above, it is clear that the appellant was only an accommodation entry provider w.r.t. these parties and not the beneficiary of these entries. Therefore, since the appellant was not the final 16 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 beneficiary, as is clear from the MOU impounded and other surrounding facts related to Ashoka Buildcon mentioned above, in my considered opinion, the entire receipt cannot be taxed in the appellant's hand. It is pertinent to note that in the impounded MOU, which has been reproduced above, the commission amount of Rs. 1.133% was mentioned as consideration for providing the accommodation entries. Taking into account these facts, it is clear that the appellant was not the final beneficiary of these accommodation entries and it was only providing the accommodation entries to other parties. Accordingly, only the commission on these entries provided by it was the real income accruing to it. Further, considering the facts mentioned above, the rate of such commission is taken @1.133%. Therefore, the commission amount of @1.133% of the total of such entries is considered as appellant's income from these concerns, over and above the income declared. 5.7 It is seen that the AO added the amount appearing in the balance sheet against IIPEL for such transaction. The appellant contended that that the amount of Rs. 36,14,557/- appearing in the balance sheet was debit balance as amount receivable from IIEPL and the same cannot not added u/s 69C of the Act as no expenditure is debited and theory of cash payment in lieu of cheque does not apply in this case. The contention raised by the appellant is not correct. It is to be understood here the appellant had neither filed return of income u/s 153A nor filed books of accounts/ledgers etc. from which the AO could have verified these transactions. The only submission available with the AO, which was filed vide letter dated 05.03.2013, shows IIEPL as debtor of Rs. 36,14,557/- in A.Y 2008-09, of Rs. 21003040 in A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs. 34855810 in A.Y. 2010-11. Therefore, the AO was constrained to take a view on the basis of available information. The appellant cannot at one hand restrict AO by not submitting the requisite details and one other hand, find flaw in the AO without factoring in the limited details available at the AO's disposal for finalizing assessment, which compelled the AO had to complete assessment u/s 144. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant has not merit. However, during the appellate proceedings, the appellant filed copies of account of the parties involved From the documents submitted by the appellant, it is seen that the following amounts were received and shown by the appellant from IIEPL, Ashoka Buildcon and Sunil Hi Tech as credited in its books of account: AY 2008-09 A.Y 2009-10 A.Y 2010-11 Α.Υ. 2011-12* IIEPL 21552018 54440662 16652770 Ashoka Buildcon Ltd 40408649 96036522 72137882 - Sunil Hi Tech Engg - 86953944 51831541 - Total Receipt 61960667 237431128 140622193 Undisclosed income. @1.133% of receipt 702014 2690095 1593249 Additions made by the AO 3614557 132693325 95360613 22808071 Relief Granted 2912543 130003230 93767364 22808071 17 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 *No amount credited for this year, though money received for accommodation entries given in the earlier years. **The AD made addition on the basis of year end balances of parties. 5.8 Thus, addition to the extent of Rs.702014 is upheld. The appellant gets relief of Rs.2912543. Ground raised by the appellant is thus partly allowed.” 16. So far as the addition of Rs.124,47,580/- made by the Assessing Officer out of transportation charges is concerned, he deleted the addition by observing as under: “6.2 I have considered the facts of the case. The AO had made addition of transportation charges for want of details considering the appellant's involvement of providing accommodation entries. It is seen that the appellant had shown income of Rs.1,98,23,379/- from Transportation receipts and also shown Transportation charges of Rs.1,24,47,580/-, which were disallowed by the AO. It is also seen from the copies of account filed by the appellant that the appellant had shown receipts of Rs. 2,15,52,018.25/- from M/s IIEPL during the year, which are treated as accommodation entries, as discussed above and these receipts included Rs. 1,24,48,492/- of Truck charges. Therefore, the observation of the AO that these transportation charges of Rs. 1,24,47,580/-were bogus appears to be correct as these are apparently booked against the accommodation entry of Rs. 1,24,48,492/- given to M/s IIEPL. However, income in respect of such accommodation entry has already been accounted for, as discussed in para 5 above and no separate addition on such account is warranted. Making such an addition would result in adding the whole amount of entry given by the appellant as its income, while as discussed above, the commission earned on such accommodation entries is its real income chargeable to tax. Therefore, the addition made by the AO disallowing entire transportation expenses was incorrect. The AO is directed to delete the same. Ground raised by the appellant is allowed.” 17. As far as the addition of Rs.45,30,000/-, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs.38,27,986/- and gave relief of Rs.7,02,014/- by observing as under: “7.2 I have considered the facts of the case. The addition was made by the AO on account of unexplained share application money amounting to Rs. 45,30,000/- received by the appellant. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted confirmation of accounts from the following: 18 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 Sr.No. Name of share applicant Amount received 1 Kailash Sharma 6,00,000 2 Shivam Sharma 6,50,000 3 Padma Sharma 2,80,000 4 ABC Corporation 15,00,000 5 Creative Rex 15,00,000 Total 45,30,000 7.3 The appellant also filed return of income and bank statement in respect of Kailash, Shivam and Padma Sharma. However, no return of income or bank statement was filed for ABC Corporation or Creative Rex. Since the evidence was filed for the first time, the same was forwarded to the AO for verification and comments. The AO vide letter dated 20.02.2014 submitted that the account information of the share applicants were only limited to the days, on which the transactions were made. From these fragmented bank account statements, it was not discernable, how the money moved from one account to another. The AO opined that all the share applicants were relative or closely held group companies and considering the nature of appellant's transactions with Sunil Hi Tech Engineers Limited & Other companies, these evidences were not sufficient to prove genuineness. The appellant in its reply to remand report has not offered any comments on this issue. It is noticed that out of the five share applicants, three were family members, who invested Rs.15,30,000/- in total. Shri Kailash Sharma who invested Rs. 6,00,000/- had shown Rs.3,67,304/- as his income in the ITR filed for the year. Similarly, Shri Shivam Sharma, who invested Rs.6,50,000/-, has shown return of Income of Rs.2,42,513/- in the ITR filed and Smt Padma Sharma, who invested Rs.2,80,000/- has shown income of Rs.1,30,486/- in the ITR filed. Since, no other details were filed by the appellant for these three persons, the creditworthiness remained doubtful. Also, considering the fragmented bank account details submitted, the genuineness of these transactions remained to be established. In case of Creative Rex and ABC Corporation, who have invested Rs. 15,00,000/- each, the appellant only filed confirmation of accounts. No return of income or bank statements for these entities was filed. On perusal of the confirmation letter of ABC corporation, it was found that it was a proprietary concern with PAN \"AHUSP1854R\" with address 4/2 Sati Niwas, Ganesh Nagar, Bhandup(W), Mumbai. The PAN quoted for ABC Corporation was found to be invalid. No other details were submitted by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant failed to establish identity creditworthiness and genuineness regarding ABC Corporation. Further, on perusal of confirmation letter submitted by Creative Rex, it was found that it was a proprietary concern with PAN \"AMSPM5538R\" which belong to Smt. Sunita Mahesh Mandve. The appellant had not submitted ITR or any other details. PAN query in the ITBA system shows that Smt. Mandve is engaged in the business in the name Mrunal Cyber and Game, which appears to be a Cyber Café/Online gaming shop. In absence of any other details, the creditworthiness and genuineness of Creative Rex infusing share application money of Rs 15,00,000/- remained to be established. It is pertinent to note here that Shri Kailash Sharma, in the statement recorded u/s 131 dated 22.12.2009, in answer to Q.no. 19, submitted that he used 5 sub contractors, who have not 19 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 executed any work, for passing accommodation entries to benefit companies like Sunil Hi Tech etc. ABC Corporation and Creative Rex were such two companies out of five, which the director of appellant company admitted of being bogus. Therefore, considering these facts, the share application money of Rs.45,30,000/- introduced in the appellant company remained unexplained. Therefore, the action of the AO in making such addition is upheld. 7.4 The appellant filed alternate contention that telescoping benefit of the additions upheld may be given. I find some merit in contention raised by the appellant. If the income of appellant on account of bogus subcontractor payments are upheld, then the same should not be taxed twice, if the same were routed through share application money. The appellant's undisclosed profit from providing accommodation entry was determined at Rs. 7,02,014/-. The appellant thus gets relief of Rs. 7,02,014/-, The balance addition of Rs. 38,27,986/- is upheld. This ground raised by the appellant is partly allowed.” 18. Aggrieved with such order of part relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Grounds raised by the assessee in IT(SS)A No.36/PUN/2022 1. In the facts of the case & in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal of the appellant, when in fact he should have allowed it in full. 2. In the facts of the case & in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in refraining from deciding on the issue of validity of the Order passed u/s 127 for transfer of the case from the ITO, Ward 11(3), Delhi to the ACIT, Central Circle-1, Nashik. Therefore, it is prayed to hold that the transfer order passed u/s 127 is not legal & valid. 3. In the facts of the case & in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the proceedings initiated u/s 153C, the Notice issued u/s 153A & the Assessment Order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153C. Therefore, it is prayed to hold that the proceedings initiated u/s 153C, the Notice issued u/s 153A & the Assessment Order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153C were not legal & valid 4. In the facts of the case & in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the proceedings u/s 153C initiated on the basis of the illegally seized papers. Therefore, it is prayed to cancel the proceedings initiated u/s 153C & the consequent assessment order passed u/s 153C. 20 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 5. In the facts of the case & in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the papers seized in the search action against M/s Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. 'belonged' to the Appellant & while doing so, the learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring/not referring to the specific provisions of sec 132(4A), the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd (370 ITR 295), the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court decision in the case of Arpit Land Pvt. Ltd. & the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (397 ITR 0344), specifically brought to his notice by the written submissions dt. 22.07.2019. Therefore, it is prayed to quash the proceedings initiated u/s 153C, the Notice issued u/s 153A & the Assessment Order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153C. 6. In the facts of the case & in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that there is no requirement of recording twin satisfaction. Therefore, it is prayed to quash the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C, initiated without recording the mandatory twin satisfaction. 7. In the facts of the case & in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C, based on the satisfaction recorded w.r.t the statement recorded in a matter not related to the case of the searched person. Therefore, it is prayed to quash the initiation of the proceedings u/s 153C. 8. In the facts of the case & in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the Notice u/s 153A was not issued prior to the recording of the satisfaction u/s 153C. Therefore, it is prayed to quash the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C & the Notice issued u/s 153A. 9. In the facts of the case & in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that even in absence of the seized material, referable to the search against M/s Ashoka Buildcon Ltd, the additions can be made in the assessment of the year which was not in the nature of an abated pending assessment. Therefore, it is prayed to cancel the additions made in the Assessment Order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153C. 10. In the facts of the case & in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153C. Therefore, it is prayed to annul the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153C. 11. In the facts of the case & in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant was involved in providing the accommodation entries to IIEPL to Ashoka Buildcon Ltd & to Sunil Hi Tech Ltd (except w.r.t. the transactions admitted in the statement u/s 131), only on the basis of the suspicion & without there being any evidence in support of such allegation. 21 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 Therefore, it is prayed to cancel the addition made/retained on the allegation of providing the accommodation entries. 12. In the facts of the case & in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating income from the alleged accommodation entries to IIEPL at Rs. 7,02,014/-, without bringing on record providing of any accommodation entry to IIEPL. Therefore, it is prayed to cancel the addition made/retained of Rs. 7,02,014/-. 13. In the facts of the case & in law, in any case, the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the income from the alleged accommodation entries to IIEPL at Rs.7,02,014/-, over & above the income declared i.e. without giving any credit for the income declared in the return. Therefore, it is prayed that, if at all any income from the alleged providing of the accommodation entries is to be upheld/retained, then credit for the income declared in the return may please be allowed. 14. In the facts of the case & in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 45,30,000/-, made on account of the additions to the share application money, treating the same as unexplained. Therefore, it is prayed to cancel the addition retained at Rs. 45,30,000/-. 15. Appellant craves leave to add, amend or delete any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing. Grounds raised by the Revenue in IT(SS)A No.51/PUN/2022 I. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance @1.133% of receipts from M/s Ashoka Buildcon Limited and M/s Indi Infra & Elements Pvt. Ltd. (IIEPL). II. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance @1.133% of receipts without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to submit the details of expenditure before the AO and also during the appellate proceeding. III. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance @1.133% of receipts without verifying the nexus between the receipts shown and the expenditure claimed. IV. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance @1.133% of receipts without verifying the cash trail. V. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance @1.133% of receipts based on the 22 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 MoU wherein it was mentioned that assessee and M/s Indi Infra & Elements Pvt. Ltd. (IIEPL) would provide accommodation entry to M/s Sunil Hi Tech Engineering Limited, whereas names of other parties are not appearing in the MoU and hence exact nature of transactions with other parties needs to be verified. VI. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance @1.133% of receipts without making enquiries about whether the beneficiaries of accommodation entries have offered the income for taxation. VII. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance @1.133% of receipts without giving an opportunity to the AO to provide his comments on the details of receipts submitted by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A). VIII. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. in SLP 769/2017 dated 16.01.2017 wherein it has been clearly held that once the expenses are bogus addition should be made of the entire expenses and not only the profit embedded in such expenses. IX. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO in respect of transportation expenditure of Rs. 1,24,47,580/- considering that this disallowance is already covered in commission calculated @1.133% without appreciating the fact that before arriving such conclusion detailed verification of the receipts and expenditure is needed. X. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in giving telescoping benefit of Rs 7,02,014/- to the assessee without considering the fact that issue of accommodation entry and introduction of share capital are two different issues and should not be inter linked. XI. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving telescoping benefit of Rs.7,02,014/- to the assessee without verifying the fact that how the proceeds out of accommodation entries given by the assessee were utilised for introduction of the share capital. XII. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete and amend any of the grounds, as per the circumstances of the case. XIII. The appellant prays leave to adduce such further evidence to substantiate its case, as the occasion may demand and evidence gathered during the course of search on assessee. 23 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 19. Identical grounds have been raised by the assessee and the Revenue in other appeals. Both the sides argued the matter extensively and filed their written synopsis. 20. So far as the appeals filed by the Revenue are concerned, the Ld. DR filed the following written submissions: “Subject. Written submission in the above case-reg 1. Brief background of the case: 1.1 A search action u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Act') was conducted upon the Asoka group on 24/04/2010. M/s Asoka Buildcon Ltd had allotted to the assessee a work order of four laneing of Jaora Nayagaon highway, Madhya Pradesh and Rajnand Gaon Chattisgarh highway. A survey action u/s 133A was conducted in the case of the assessee i.e. M/s Four Pillars Communications Private Limited by the ADIT(Inv), Mumbai and in the course of this survey, it was found that M/s Asoka Buildcon Ltd had debited expenses for execution of sub- contracts awarded to M/s Four Pillars Communications Private Limited. 1.2 An unconnected search conducted in the case of M/s Sunil Hi-Tech Engineering Ltd, Nagpur had been conducted by issuing commission to the DDIT(Inv.), Mumbai. In the said operation, it was found that M/s Sunil Hi- Tech Engineering Ltd had awarded contracts to M/s Four Pillars Communication Private limited. In the statement recorded in the course of survey action on 22/12/2009, the Managing Director Mr. Kailash Sharma stated that the payment made by M/s Sunil Hi-Tech Engineering to the companies namely M/s Four Pillar Communications Private Limited and M/s Indi Infra Elements Pvt. Ltd was with an intention to get cash in return for the payment made. That, the cash was partly returned back by us (i.e. M/s Four Pillar Communication Pvt. Ltd of which Mr Kailash Sharma was MD) directly to M/s Sunil Hi-Tech Engineering Ltd through their proprietorship concerns DMI Infracon and Konark Steel and the balance was written by way of cash withdrawals done by the sub-contractors Vishnu Enterprises, Creative Rex, ABC Corporation, MB Mines etc. In other words, the payments by cheque to the assessee were returned by it to M/s Sunil Hi-Tech Engineering Ltd in cash. 24 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 1.3 It was in this background that the assessment of the assessee i.e. M/s Four Pillars Communications Private Limited was carried out by issuing notice u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. It is a fact that the assessee has not been subject to action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at any point of time but has been subjected to survey action u/s 133A of the Act. It has been the case of the assessee that as it was never subject to any search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act, therefore, it was incorrect to state that notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee. It is the case of the assessee that notice was issued u/s 153A instead of 153C. Now, for the sake of reference, the AYs and the notices issued as mentioned in the assessment orders is collated as under SN AY Notice u/s Para of assessment order/page(s) Remarks 1 2008-09 153C 03/ pg 1 & pg 2 The section and subsection under which the assessment has been passed is 144 r.w.s. 153C. This is mentioned in the table containing the details of the assessment and also in the last line of the assessment order 2 2009-10 153C 03/ pg 1 & pg 2 -----do----- 3 2010-11 153C 03/ pg 1 & pg 2 -----do----- 4 2011-12 153A 04/pg 2 The section and subsection under which the assessment has been passed is 144 r.w.s. 153C. This is mentioned in the table containing the details of the assessment and also in the last line of the assessment order. 25 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 3. It is to be mentioned that the issue of notice u/s 153A and of passing the assessment order under section 153C wherein it was mentioned that notice was issued under section 153C was taken by the assessee before the CIT (A). In this connection, the CIT(A) on careful consideration of the facts of the case has given a finding that the AO while disposing of the stay of demand vide letter dated 27/06/2013 had clarified that the mention of section 153A was a typographical error. Further, that the AO had submitted in the remand report that proper satisfaction was recorded under section 153C of the Act on 17/09/2012 before issuing the notice. It is stated and submitted that the Appellant at the stage had alleged that the satisfaction as likely recorded afterward i.e. after the issue of notice. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, the said claim of the assessee Appellant was taken in the nature of an allegation without any basis as no evidence had been filed in support of the same by the assessee. Here, it is to note that there was no dispute with regard to the recording of the satisfaction for issue of notice u/s 153C but of its timing. Therefore, in the light of the fact that the satisfaction was recorded under section 153C by the AO then the issue of notice u/s 153A instead of 153C has to be read only as a typographical error ie. \"A\" being typed instead of \"C\" after sec 153. This proposition is further strengthened by the mention of section 153C in the body of the order. Therefore, the omission, if any, is covered within the provision of section 292B of the Act. Also, it is to mention that the AO had given opportunities during the assessment proceedings to the assessee and the assessee had responded to the same though partially and had never tried to make the said grievance before the AO. The assessee Appellant on the other hand was never cooperative and did not even file the return of income in response to the notice. 3.1 It is to state and submit that reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements by the Revenue: (i) Super Malls (P) Ltd vs PCIT, 8, New Delhi [2020] 115 taxmann.com 105(SC) (ii) K M Nagraj vs DCIT, Cent Cir 1(1), Bangalore [2020] 120 taxmann.com 425 (Karnataka) (iii) Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani vs ACIT [2016] 76 taxmann.com 311 (Gujarat) 4. In view of the above, the order of the AO may be affirmed and the appeal of the assessee on this issue of notice being issued u/s 153A and assessment being completed under section 153C may kindly as a typographical error which would squarely fall within the scope and ambit of section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 26 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 5. The above written submission may kindly be taken on record of the Hon'ble Bench and be considered favourably for deciding the appeals in favour of the Revenue on the above issue. It is prayed accordingly.” 21. So far as the appeals filed by the Revenue are concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the following written submissions: “Department’s Appeal No.: IT(SS) 51-53/PUN/2022 Synopsis of Assessee’s Contention: Facts of the case: 1. In the course of a search action against a third party „Ashok Buildcon Ltd‟, the Assessing officer found certain work order copies bearing the assessee‟s name, based on which an action u/s 153A of the Act was initiated against the appellant vide notice dated 17.09.2012 pertaining to AY 2005-06 to AY 2011- 12. 2. Thereafter, assessment orders for the respective years were passed under section 153C of the Act by the AO. 3. The Assessing officer (AO) made an addition of the closing balance of receivables from the below mentioned entities as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act, assuming the said balances to arise out of accommodation entries-  Ashok Buildcon Ltd  Indie Infra Energy Private Limited  Sunil Hi-tech Engineering Pvt. Ltd 4. Certain additions were also made by the AO with regards to share application money on the ground that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the same. 5. Based on the MOU entered into between the Director of the Appellant and Director of Sunil Hi-tech Engineering Pvt. Ltd., found during the survey u/s 133A on the Appellant and based on the statement on oath by the Director of the Appellant pertaining to Sunil Hi-tech Engineering Pvt. Ltd, the CIT(A) concluded that accommodation entries were being provided to all the 3 aforesaid parties with a commission of 1.133%. Accordingly, an addition of 1.133% of the total receipts from all the 3 parties was made by the CIT(A) in the course of the proceedings. 27 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 Further, a telescoping benefit had been granted by the CIT(A) with respect to the addition towards share application money. 6. Thereafter the appellant has preferred an Appeal before your Honours. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that the aforesaid addition should not be restricted to 1.133% of the total receipts from the parties but should be made with respect to the entire amount. 7. In this regard, it is reiterated that the AO had made an addition of the closing balance of the receivables of the aforesaid parties. The CIT(A) had considered the total receipts as a base as against the closing balance and had restricted the addition to 1.133% of those receipts. 8. Now, it is being appealed before your Honours that the addition should be made with respect to the entire receipts as against 1.133%. Accordingly, it is submitted that the addition of the amount which had not even been done by the AO is sought vide the present appeal. 9. Thus, it is submitted that the grounds have been raised before your Honours to facilitate an enhancement of income of the assessee. 10. As per Section 254 of the Act, it transpires that the powers of the ITAT are wide enough to pass an order as it thinks fit. 11. However, as per the Hon‟ble Supreme Court decision in Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC), the ITAT does not possess the power to enhance an assessment. The relevant Para is re-produced below: “6. In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Vs.CIT (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC) this Court has held that under s. 33(4) of the IT Act, 1922 [equivalent to s. 254(1) of the 1961 Act]. The Tribunal was not authorized to take back the benefit granted to the assessee by the AO. The Tribunal has no power to enhance the assessment. Applying the ratio of the said judgment to the present case, we are of the view that in this case, the AO had granted depreciation in respect of 42,000 bottles out of the total number of bottles (5,46,000), by reason of the impugned judgment. That benefit is sought to be taken away by the Department, which is not permissible in law. This is the infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court and the Tribunal.” 12. Reliance is also placed on the decision in Fidelity Shares and Security Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2017) 390 ITR 0267 (Guj), wherein it was held that the Tribunal has no power under the Income Tax Act to enhance the assessment in appeal in view of the statutory 28 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 provisions. Further it was held that the benefit, which was sought to be taken away by the Department, was not permissible in law and this is the infirmity in the judgment of the Tribunal as the Tribunal has no power to enhance the assessment in appeal. 13. Accordingly, it is humbly submitted before Your Honoursthat the present appeal should be dismissed as not maintainable. 14. Alternatively, reliance is placed on the following decisions wherein the addition with respect to the commission arising out of the provision of accommodation entries has been made up to 0.15% of the total receipts/ value, which is lesser than the percentage of 1.133% adopted by the CIT(A):  Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-14 v. Alag Securities (P.) Ltd [2020] 117 taxmann.com 292 (Bombay)  Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-14, Mumbai v. M/s. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd.(Bombay) DATE :- 25 MARCH, 2019 URS 1 of 3 2 23-ITXA 54- 17 15. Thus, in such a case, it is submitted that the addition of commission at the rate of 0.15%has been accepted in various judicial decisions, which is much lower than the rate of 1.133%in the present case. 16. Accordingly, it is humbly submitted before Your Honours that the present appeals should be dismissed.” 22. So far as the appeals filed by the assessee are concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the following written submissions: “Appellant’s Appeal No.: IT(SS)A 36-39/PUN/2022 Synopsis of Appellant’s Contention: Facts of the case: 1. In the course of a search action against a third party „Ashok Buildcon Ltd‟, the Assessing officer (AO) found certain work order copies bearing the appellant‟s name, based on which an action u/s 153A of the Act was initiated against the appellant vide notice dated 17.09.2012 pertaining to AY 2005-06 to AY 2010-11. 2. Thereafter, assessment orders for the respective years were passed under section 153C of the Act by the AO. 29 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 3. The AO made an addition of the closing balance of receivables from the below mentioned entities as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act, assuming the said balances to arise out of accommodation entries-  Ashok Buildcon Ltd  Indie Infra Energy Private Limited  Sunil Hi-tech Engineering Pvt. Ltd 4. Certain additions were also made by the AO with regards to share application money on the ground that the appellant failed to establish the genuineness of the same. 5. Based on the MOU entered into between the Director of the Appellant and Director of Sunil Hi-tech Engineering Pvt. Ltd., found during the survey u/s 133A on the Appellant and based on the statement on oath by the Director of the Appellant pertaining to Sunil Hi-tech Engineering Pvt. Ltd, the CIT(A) concluded that accommodation entries were being provided to all the 3 aforesaid parties with a commission of 1.133%. Accordingly, an addition of 1.133% of the total receipts from all the 3 parties was made by the CIT(A) in the course of the proceedings. 6. Further, a telescoping benefit had been granted by the CIT(A) with respect to the addition towards share application money. Our Contentions: I. Proceedings u/s 153A of the Act initiated without a Search 1.1 As submitted earlier, the notice dated 17.09.2012 pertaining to AY 2005-06 to AY 2010-11u/s 153A of the Act was issued by the AO without initiating a search in the premises of the appellant. 1.2 It was held by the Hon‟ble CIT(A)that section 153Amentioned in the notice issued to the Appellant was a typographical error which should have been section 153C of the Act. 1.3 Furthermore, in the assessment orders passed for the respective AYs, it was erroneously mentioned by the AO that even the Appellant was under a search. 1.4 For initiating the proceedings under section 153A of the Act, a search should be initiated u/s 132 of the Act or documents or any assets should be requisitioned under section 132A of the Act. But, in the present case, the appellant has not been subject to any of the aforementioned actions. 30 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 1.5 Given the same, it is submitted that the notice u/s 153A of the Act does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements since neither a search u/s 132 of the Act had been initiated on the Appellant, nor were any documents or assets requisitioned under section 132A of the Act. 1.6 We rely on the following decisions in this regard-  Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC)  Bombay High Court decision in Smt. Kalpana Shantilal Haria v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 27(2), Navi Mumbai & Ors WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3063 OF 2017 dated 22.12.2017  S W Chaudhari and S V Wagh VS ITO 82 ITD 725 (Pune) 1.7 The CIT(A) has upheld the validity of the notice u/s 153C of the Act on the ground that the incorrect section reference was a mere typographical error. However, the opening para of the assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing officer is re-produced below: “A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was conducted in the Ashoka Group of cases on 20.04.2010. Simultaneously office premises of the company was also covered under search action. This case was centralized with this office by the order of the CIT Delhi-IV, New Delhi dated 28.08.2012 bearing F. No CIT-IV/Centralization/115/2012- 13/1391.” 1.8 Thus, the impugned order bears an erroneous remark in its opening para itself that the Appellant was under search. It indicates that the Ld. Assessing officer was under an erroneous impression that a search was initiated on the Appellant‟s premises as well. 1.9 Thus, it is humbly submitted that the issue of notice u/s 153A was a conscious decision of the Ld. Assessing officer and not a mere typographical error. Without prejudice to the above contentions, and assuming but not accepting that the initiation of the impugned proceedings is valid, it is submitted that even the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act are invalid due to non-satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements, placing relying on the below mentioned contentions: 2. The Assessing officer has not recorded any satisfaction so as to indicate whether material found during search belongs to Appellant 2.1 The provisions of section 153C of the Act state that the Assessing Officer should satisfy himself and record a satisfaction note before issuing notice u/s. 153C of the Act to the person other than the searched person. 31 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 2.2 Therefore, one satisfaction is to be recorded by the AO of the \"searched person\" that the material found belongs to \"other person\" and the second satisfaction is of the Assessing officer of that \"other person\" to the effect that the material belongs to him. 2.3 Further, there is a requirement that the relevant material should be handed over to the AO having jurisdiction over such \"other person\". 2.4 However, when the Assessing officer of the \"searched person\" and “other person” is the same, in such a case, a dual satisfaction note may not be required. A single satisfaction note may be recorded incorporating both the subject matters. 2.5 Further, the requirement of handover of the relevant material also becomes academic. However, the fact that the material does belong to such “other person” is required to be recorded in the satisfaction note. 2.6 The aforesaid position is upheld by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Ashok Commercial Enterprises VS ACIT WP 2595 of 2021 dated 04.09.2023 and the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Pepsi Food Pvt Ltd (W.P.(C) 415,568,570,571,575 & 576/2014 decided on 07.08.2014), wherein reliance was placed on the Apex Court decision in Super Malls Pvt Ltd Vs PCIT 423 ITR 281(SC) 3. Material seized in the course of third party search “not belonging” to the Appellant 3.1 One of the jurisdictional requirements to assess any other person u/s 153C of the Act, based on material or documents seized during the search of a third party search is that, the same should belong to such other person. 3.2 During the third party search, certain work orders bearing the name of the appellant were seized during the premises of such party. 3.3 The aforesaid records form a part of the records of such third party and at the most these papers can be said to relate to appellant.But mere relation with the seized papers is not enough for initiating an action u/s 153C of the Act. 3.4 Thus, to initiate proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, the work orders should belong to the appellant. 3.5 It is submitted that the record maintained by a person for his own purpose though referable to the assessee cannot be said to be belonging to the assessee within the meaning of section 153C of the Act. 32 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 3.6 Further, Section 132(4A) of the Act has a statutory presumption that any material seized during the search shall be presumed to belong to the party under search. 3.7 Further, the party Ashok Buildcon has accepted that fact that the said work papers belong to it. 3.8 In this regard, we rely on the Delhi High Court decision in Pepsi Food Pvt Ltd (W.P.(C) 415,568,570,571, 575 & 576/2014 decided on 07.08.2014), wherein it was held that: “15.Secondly, we may also observe that the finding of photocopies in the possession of a searched person does not necessarily mean and imply that they „belong‟ to the person who holds the originals. Possession of documents and possession of photocopies of documents are two separate things. While the Jaipuria Group may be the owner of the photocopies of the documents it is quite possible that the originals may be owned by some other person. Unless it is established that the documents in question, whether they be photocopies or originals, do not belong to the searched person, the question of invoking Section 153C of the said Act does not arise. 16.Thirdly, we would also like to make it clear that the assessing officers should not confuse the expression „belongs to‟ with the expressions „relates to‟ or „refers to‟. A registered sale deed, for example, „belongs to‟ the purchaser of the property although it obviously „relates to‟ or „refers to‟ the vendor. In this example if the purchasers premises are searched and the registered sale deed is seized, it cannot be said that it „belongs to‟ the vendor just because his name is mentioned in the document.” (Emphasis supplied) 3.9 Belongingness being an exclusive attribute, the same set of document cannot be said to belong to more than one person. 3.10 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial decisions:  CIT VsArpit Land P Ltd [2017] 78 taxmann.com 300 (Bombay)  Meghmani Organics Ltd Vs DCIT (129 TTJ 255 –Ahd) 3.11 Section 153C of the Act was amended vide Finance Act, 2015. 3.12 Prior to the amendment, where search was conducted on a person and undisclosed assets/documents indicating undisclosed income are found as belonging to the \"other person\" other than, searched person\", then in that case, proceedings u/s 153C would be undertaken against the \"other person\". 33 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 3.13 Since there were disputes with regards to the interpretation of the term “belongs to”, the said term was replaced with the term “pertain to”, thereby widening the scope of the section. 3.14 As per the Finance Act, 2015, the said amendment was applicable from 01.06.2015 i.e. prospectively. 3.15 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court had an occasion to interpret the scope of the amendment in the decision of Income-tax Officer v.Vikram Sujitkumar Bhati[2023] 149 taxmann.com 123 (SC), wherein it was held that the amended provisions of 153C of the Act would apply where both the satisfaction note and assumption of jurisdiction were after 01.06.2015, even though the search was conducted prior to the amendment. 3.16 In the present case, the search was conducted on 17.09.2012 and the order sheet copy alleged to be satisfaction note was also dated 17.09.2012. Further notice u/s 153A was also issued on 17.09.2012. 3.17 Since the date of search as well as the alleged satisfaction recorded and the notice issued u/s 153A are all prior to 01.06.2015 accordingly, it is submitted that the amendment is not applicable to the Appellant. The relevant para of the decision in Vikram Sujitkumar Bhati (Supra) is re- produced below: “10.3 Thus, as per the proviso to section 153C as inserted vide Finance Act, 2005, and the effect of the said proviso is that it creates a deeming fiction wherein any reference made to the date of initiation of search is deemed to be a reference made to the date when the Assessing Officer of the non-searched person receives the books of account or documents or assets seized etc. Thus, in the present case, even though the search under section 132 was initiated prior to the amendment to section 153C w.e.f. 1-6-2015, the books of account or documents or assets were seized by the Assessing Officer of the non-searched person only on 25-4-2017, which is subsequent to the amendment, therefore, when the notice under section 153C was issued on 4-5-2018, the provision of the law existing as on that date, i.e., the amended section 153C shall be applicable. 4. The seized material does not have a bearing on the income of the appellant 4.1 Another jurisdictional requirement to assess any other person u/s 153C of the Act is that the documents or material belonging to other person seized or requisitioned during a third party search should have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person. 34 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 4.2 Accordingly, in the present case, the work orders seized need to have a bearing on the total income of the appellant to proceed with any assessment or reassessment of income based on the said work orders. 4.3 The said work orders seized during the course of search do not have any bearing on determination of income of the Appellant since these work orders have a draft estimate of work to be carried out. 4.4 The final transaction carried out as a result of these work orders has been duly accounted for in the books of the respective parties. 4.5 Thus, the draft work orders containing an estimated amount of labour, capital and overhead requirement to carry out the particular task cannot be said to have a bearing on the total income of the Appellant. The resultant transactions have been duly recorded in the respective books of accounts. 4.6 In this regard, reliance is placed on the Apex Court decision in CIT-iii, Pune Vs Sinhgad Technical Education Society CIVIL APPEAL NO.11080 OF 2017 (SC), wherein it was held that: “18) The ITAT permitted this additional ground by giving a reason that it was a jurisdictional issue taken up on the basis of facts already on the record and, therefore, could be raised. In this behalf, it was noted by the ITAT that as per the provisions of Section 153C of the Act, incriminating material which was seized had to pertain to the Assessment Years in question and it is an undisputed fact that the documents which were seized did not establish any co-relation, document-wise, with these four Assessment Years. Since this requirement under Section 153C of the Act is essential for assessment under that provision, it becomes a jurisdictional fact.” (Emphasis supplied) 4.7 Where the seized material had no bearing or nexus with the income of the Appellant, it would be impermissible to commence any enquiry with respect to such material u/s 153C. 4.8 It is only in cases where the seized documents/assets could possibly reflect any undisclosed income of the Assessee for the relevant assessment years, that further enquiry would be warranted u/s 153C. 4.9 Reliance is placed on the following decisions in this respect:  Commissioner of Income-tax-7 v. RRJ Securities Ltd [2015] 62 taxmann.com 391 (Delhi)  Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) v. Sunway Realtech (P.) Ltd [2022] 142 taxmann.com 477 (Delhi) 5. Abated assessment years should not be disturbed 5.1 If during the course of a third party search, documents or material belonging to some other person are handed over to the AO having jurisdiction over such 35 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 other person, the assessments which are pendingon the date of receipt of such documents by the AO are abated. 5.2 The notice initiating action u/s 153C of the Act was issued on 17.09.2012. 5.3 Thus, the Assessments for AY 2008-09 to AY 2010-11 are unabated as on the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the AO having jurisdiction over the appellant. 5.4 In the Appellant‟s own case, the CIT(A) has quashed the impugned proceedings accepting the aforesaid ground for AY 2005-06 to AY 2007-08.In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT-ii Vs Continental Warehousing Corporation INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 523 OF 2013 dated 21.04.2015 and Commissioner of Income-Tax. Central-IV Vs All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1969 OF 2013, wherein it was held that the unabated assessments should not be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material. 5.5 Accordingly, it is submitted that in the absence of any incriminating seized material found during search of third party in relation to the disclosed transactions of contract receipts, the finality of completed assessments cannot be disturbed. 6. No incriminating material in the course of third party search 6.1 The AO has relied on certain copies of work order bearing the name of the Appellant as incriminating material to initiate proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 6.2 These work orders consist of estimates of infrastructure work to be carried out and cannot be categorized as an incriminating material to initiate the impugned proceedings. 6.3 The transactions with respect to the work orders have been duly disclosed and the copies of ledger accounts and other relevant details have been submitted to the AO in the course of assessment proceedings by the Appellant. 6.4 Reliance is placed on the below mentioned decision, wherein it was held that if there is no incriminating material found, proceedings u/s 153C of the Act are unsustainable:  CIT-iii, Pune Vs Sinhgad Technical Education Society CIVIL APPEAL NO.11080 OF 2017 (SC)  CIT-ii Vs Continental Warehousing Corporation INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 523 OF 2013 Bombay HC dated 21.04.2015 Given the same, it is humbly submitted that the impugned Appeal preferred before your Honours should be allowed. 36 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 23. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of both the sides. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case issued a notice u/s 153A of the Act for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, copies of which are placed at pages 26 to 28 of the paper book which read as under: a) assessment year : 2008-09 37 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 b) Assessment year : 2009-10 38 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 c) Assessment year 2010-11 39 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 d) Assessment year : 2011-12 24. Further in the assessment orders for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 the Assessing Officer has mentioned that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act has taken place in the case of the assessee. The relevant observation of the Assessing Officer in the first para of all the three years is as under: 40 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 a) Assessment year 2008-09 b) Assessment year : 2009-10 41 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 c) Assessment year 2010-11 d) Assessment year 2011-12 (emphasis supplied by us) 42 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 25. From the above it is clear that despite no search action has taken place in the case of the assessee and only a survey u/s 133A of the Act had taken place, the Assessing Officer not only issued notice u/s 153A but has also mentioned in paragraph 1 of the assessment order of each of the above assessment years that the case of the assessee was covered under search action. Therefore, it is not understood as to how the Assessing Officer has passed the order with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Nashik who vide his letter dated 28.03.2013 bearing No.Nsk/Jt.CIT(C)/153D/2012-13/1961 has given his approval u/s 153D of the Act for such order. This shows that the same was approved u/s 153D without application of mind. 26. We find that the Assessing Officer while issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act has recorded the following satisfaction on 17.09.2012, copy of which is placed at pages 30 to 31 of the paper book and which reads as under: “Order Sheet 17.09.2012 The documents has been seized from the office of M/s. Ashoka Bulldcon Limited as per Annexure-A-3/32, Page No. 8 to 22, which is a work order dated 19.05.2008. As per this work order M/s. ABL has allotted the work of four lanning of Jaora-Naygann Highway, Madhya Pradesh and Highway of Rajnandgaon- Chhatisgarh to M/s Four Pillars Communication Pvt. Ltd. of Mumbai. Documents has also been seized as per Page No. 44 to 47 of Annexure-A/35 which contains the extract of account of M/s. Diamant Investment & Finance Ltd. in the books of account of M/s. ABL-NH-6 (CG)-CH-362, wherein the sale of diesel has been shown from 01.04.2009 to 20.11.2009 to M/s. Diamant Investment & Finance Ltd. The total cost of the work has been shown at Rs.10,47,15,000/- for Jaora-Naygaon Highway and Rs.16,10,05,000/- for Rajnandgaon Highway. The description of the work includes the cleaning of road lands roadway excavation in soil/rock, construction of roadway embankment, making of hutments, etc. 43 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 A Survey action u/s 133A was conducted in the case of M/s. Four Pillar Communication Pvt. Ltd. by the ADIT (Inv), Mumbai in consequence to the search action conducted by Investigation Unit of Nagpur. During the course of survey it was found that M/s. Four Pillars Communication Pvt. Ltd. is providing entries for inflating the expenditure. The details of expenses debited by M/s. ABL towards amount paid to M/s Four Pillar Communication Pvt. Ltd. for execution of sub contracts is as follows. i. For F.Y. 2008-09 Rs. 7.45 Crores ii. For F.Y. 2009-10 Rs. 2.27 Crores Total Rs. 9.72 Crores In 2009 a Search & Seizure action u/s. 132 was conducted in the case of M/s. Sunil Hi-tech Engineering Ltd., Nagpur. M/s. Sunil Hi-tech Engineering Ltd. is also in the business of civil construction. In connection with this group a survey action u/s. 133A was conducted in the case of M/s. Four Pillar Communication Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Indi Infra Elements Pvt. Ltd. at Mumbai on 22.12.2009 by DDIT (Inv), Unit-IX (1), Mumbai. The statement of Shri. Kailash Sharma, Managing Director of M/s Four Pillar Communication Pvt. Ltd. was recorded on 23.12.2009. It was confirmed by Shri. Kailash Sharma in his statement that no work has been done by them for M/s. Sunil Hi-tech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Payment received by cheque by M/s. Four Pillar Communication Pvt. Ltd. was given back in cash to M/s. Sunil Hi-tech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. In view of the statement recorded of Shri. Kailash Sharma it appears that M/s. Four Pillar Communication Pvt. Ltd. is not a genuine concern and is merely providing entries to major contractor. In view of the above, there are doubts regarding the bonafides of the transactions between M/s. ABL and M/s. Four Pillar Communication Pvt. Ltd. The Addl DIT (Inv), Unit-IV, Mumbai, vide this office letter dated 21.06.2010 was requested to conduct the enquiries. The enquiry report in respect of M/s. Four Pillar Communication Pvt. Ltd. will be submitted after receipt of the same. For the above mentioned reasons it is the opinion of the undersigned that this is a fit case for issue of notice under section 153C of the Act. This case has been centralized to this office vide order of the CIT-IV, Delhi dated 28.08.2012 bearing F.No.CIT-IV/Centralization/115/2012-13/1391. Notices under section 153C of the Act for AYs 2005-06 to 2010-11 and notice u/s 142(1) for AY 2011-12 issued.” 27. As per the provisions of section 153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer should satisfy himself and record a satisfaction note before issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act to the person other than the searched person. In other words one 44 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 satisfaction is to be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the \"searched person that the material found belongs to other person\" and the second satisfaction is of the Assessing officer of that \"other person” to the effect that the material belongs to him. There is also a requirement that the relevant material should be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such \"other person\". However, when the Assessing officer of the searched person and \"other person\" is the same, in such a situation, a single satisfaction note may be recorded incorporating both the subject matters and a dual satisfaction note may not be required. However, the fact that the material does belong to such \"other person\" is required to be recorded in the satisfaction note. For the above proposition, we rely on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Commercial Enterprises vs. ACIT in WP No.2595 of 2021 dated 04.09.2023 and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in W.P.(C) 415, 568, 570, 571, 575 & 576/2014 dated 07.08.2014. 28. We further find that one of the jurisdictional requirements to assess any other person u/s 153C of the Act based on material or documents seized during the search of a third party is that the same should belong to such other person. In the instant case during the course of search in the case of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. certain work orders bearing the name of the assessee were seized from the premises of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. We further find that one of the jurisdictional requirements to assess any other person u/s 153C based on material or documents seized during 45 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 the search or a third party search is that the same should belong to such other person. In the instant case, during the course of search in the case of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. certain work orders bearing the name of the assessee were found in the premises of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. Further, page Nos.44 to 47 of Annexure A/35 contain the extracts of account of M/s. Diamant Investment & Finance Ltd. in the books of account of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. Under these circumstances, we have to see as to whether the seized work orders and the ledger extracts in the books of account of the searched person belong to the assessee or not. So far as the extracts of the ledger account of M/s. Diamant Investment & Finance Ltd. in the books of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd., by no stretch of imagination can be said to be belonged to the assessee. So far as the work orders are concerned, the same in our opinion at the most can be said to be related to the assessee or the information contained therein relates to the assessee but certainly not belongs to the assessee. In our opinion, mere relation of the assessee with the seized papers is not enough for initiating an action u/s 153C of the Act unless the same belongs to the assessee since as per the existing law at the particular period, the work orders should belong to the assessee. As per the provisions of section 132(4A), the presumption is that any material seized during the search shall be presumed to belong to the party under search. Further, the party Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. has accepted the fact that the said work order papers belong to it which is evident from the confirmation letter dated 19.07.2018, copy of which is placed at page 95 of the paper book which reads as under: 46 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 47 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 29. We find the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) has held that the finding of photocopies in the possession of a searched person does not necessarily mean and imply that they belong to the person who holds the originals. It has been held that unless it is established that documents in question, whether they be photocopies or originals, do not belong to the searched person, the question of invoking Section 153C of the said Act does not arise. The relevant observations of the Hon‟ble High Court from paras 15 to 17 read as under: “15. Secondly, we may also observe that the finding of photocopies in the possession of a searched person does not necessarily mean and imply that they “belong” to the person who holds the originals. Possession of documents and possession of photocopies of documents are two separate things. While the Jaipuria Group may be the owner of the photocopies of the documents it is quite possible that the originals may be owned by some other person. Unless it is established that the documents in question, whether they be photocopies or originals, do not belong to the searched person, the question of invoking Section 153C of the said Act does not arise. 16. Thirdly, we would also like to make it clear that the assessing officers should not confuse the expression “belongs to” with the expressions “relates to” or “refers to”. A registered sale deed, for example, “belongs to” the purchaser of the property although it obviously “relates to” or “refers to” the vendor. In this example if the purchasers premises are searched and the registered sale deed is seized, it cannot be said that it “belongs to” the vendor just because his name is mentioned in the document. In the converse case if the vendor‟s premises are searched and a copy of the sale deed is seized, it cannot be said that the said copy “belongs to” the purchaser just because it refers to him and he (the purchaser) holds the original sale deed. In this light, it is obvious that none of the three sets of documents – copies of preference shares, unsigned leaves of cheque books and the copy of the supply and loan agreement – can be said to “belong to” the petitioner. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find that the ingredients of Section 153C of the said Act have been satisfied in this case. Consequently the notices dated 02.08.2013 issued under Section 153C of the said Act are quashed. Accordingly all proceedings pursuant thereto stand quashed.” 48 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 30. We find the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Arpit Land P Ltd (supra) has observed as under: “1. These two Appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the common impugned order dated 22nd March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The common impugned order disposed of 67 appeals pertaining to 52 different assessees, amongst them were the present two respondents before us. The Revenue has filed these two appeals being aggrieved by the impugned order of the Tribunal to the extent it relates to assessment year 2007-08 in Income Tax Appeal No 150 of 2014 in the case of Ambit Realty (P) Ltd and it relates for assessment year 2008-09 in Income Tax Appeal No 83 of 2014 in the case of Arpit Land (P) Ltd. 2. Although multiple questions have been formulated in the appeal memo, Mr. Kotangale, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue urges only following question of law for our consideration: “(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring crucial evidence and surrounding circumstances and proceeding to interpret Section 153C of the Act, narrowly and mechanically, and deleting the additions made under Section 69C of the Act both on merits and point of law ?\" 3. The undisputed facts before us are that in search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was carried out in case of Jay Corporation group, its employees and close associates who were involved in the process of acquiring land. Mr.Dilip Dherai was managing and handling land acquisition on behalf of Jay Corporation group. During the course of search, certain documents were found in possession of Mr. Dilip Dherai on the basis of which the Assessing Officer after recording satisfaction under Section 153C of the Act proceeded to initiate proceedings in respect of both respondents - assessees before us. 4. The Tribunal by the impugned order found that the documents seized from possession of Mr. Dilip Dherai did not belong to the assessee. Consequently, it held that the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 153C of the Act., as at the relevant time jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to proceed consequent to the search is only when money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of accounts or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belonged to a person other than the person who has been searched, then the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such person on being handed over seized document etc can proceed against such other person by recording satisfaction and issuing a notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. The impugned order of the Tribunal records the fact that the documents seized from the possession of Mr. Dilip Dherai do not belong to any of two respondents-assessees before us, consequently, the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act to issue notice to the 49 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 respondents-assessees. Consequently, the Tribunal also held that satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating assessment proceedings in respect of two respondents-assessees before us were also not sustainable. In the above view, the impugned order of the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 153C of the Act on the two respondents-assessees before us. 5. The grievance of the Revenue before us is that the respondent-assessees and Mr. Dilip Dherai are all hand in glove working in tandem to acquire land. Therefore, in the above facts the impugned notice under Section 153C of the Act and also satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer cannot be found fault with. Thus the impugned order of the Tribunal calls for interference and these appeals be admitted. 6. We note that in terms of Section 153C of the Act at the relevant time i.e. prior to 1st June, 2015 the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act could only be initiated/proceeded against a party-assessee if the document seized during the search and seizure proceedings of another person belonged to the party-assessee concerned. The impugned order records a finding of fact that the seized documents which formed the basis of initiation of proceedings against the respondent assessees do not belong to it. This finding of fact has not been shown to us to be incorrect. Further, the impugned order placed reliance upon a decision of Gujarat High Court in Vijaybhal N. Chandrani. Asstt. CIT (2011) 333 ITR 436 which records that the condition precedent for issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act is that the document found during search proceedings should belong to assessee to whom notice is issued under Section 153C of the Act. It was fairly pointed out to us by Mr Mistry, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent assessee that the above decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in CIT V. Vijaybhai N. Chondront [2013] 357 ITR 713/217 Taxman 138/35 trxmann.com 580. However, we find that the Apex Court reversed the view of Gujarat High Court on the ground that efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner to raise its objections before the authorities under the Act. Therefore, the Gujarat High Court should not have exercised its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to entertain the petition. However, the Apex Court also clarified that it was not expressing any opinion of the correctness or otherwise of construction placed by the High Court on Section 153C of the Act. The Revenue has not pointed out any reason why the construction put on Section 153C of the Act by Gujarat High Court is not correct/appropriate. We find that in any case our Court has also taken a similar view in CIT v. Sinigad Technical Education Society [2015] (378 ITR 84/235 Taxman 163/63 taxmann.com 14 (Bom,) and refused to entertain Revenue's appeal. 7. The grievance of the Revenue as submitted by Mr. Kotangale is a submission made on the basis of suspicion and not on the basis of any evidence on record which would indicate that the respondent-assessee and persons searched were all part of the same group. Be that as it may, the requirement of Section 153C of the Act cannot be ignored at the alter of suspicion. The Revenue has to strictly comply 50 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 with Section 153C of the Act. We are of the view that non satisfaction of the condition precedent viz, the seized document must belong to the respondent assessee is a jurisdictional issue and non satisfaction thereof would make the entire proceedings taken thereunder null and void. The issue of Section 69C of the Act can only arise for consideration if the proceedings under Section 153€ of the Act are upheld. Therefore, in the present facts, the issue of Section 69C of the Act is academic. 8. In view of the above reasons and particularly the finding of fact that seized document which forms the basis of the present proceedings, do not belong to the petitioner and the same not being shown to be perverse, the question as raised does not give rise to any substantial question of law and thus not entertained. 9. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.” 31. We find the provisions of section 153C of the Act were amended vide the Finance Act, 2015. Prior to the said amendment, where search was conducted on a person and undisclosed assets/documents indicating undisclosed income are found as belonging to the \"other person\" other than, searched person\", then in that case, proceedings u/s 153C would be undertaken against the \"other person\". The Finance Act, 2015 made certain amendments by widening the scope of the section by replacing the word “pertain to” instead of “belongs to”. The said amendment was applicable from 01.06.2015 i.e. with prospective effect. 32. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhati [2023] 149 taxmann.com 123 (SC) has held that the amended provisions of 153C of the Act would apply where both the satisfaction note and assumption of jurisdiction were after 01.06.2015, even though the search was conducted prior to the amendment. Since in the instant case the search was conducted on 17.09.2012, the order sheet copy containing the satisfaction note 51 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 is dated 17.09.2012 and the notice u/s 153A was also issued on 17.09.2012, therefore, the amendment to provisions of section 153C in our opinion is not applicable to the facts of the present case and therefore, the recording of satisfaction note u/s 153C by the Assessing Officer in the instant case on the basis of the seized work order, which does not belong to the assessee but may pertain to the assessee or any information contained therein relates to the assessee is not in accordance with law. Since it is held that the seized document i.e. copy of the work order which is the basis for recording the satisfaction u/s 153C does not belong to the assessee although it may pertain to the assessee or any information contained therein relates to the assessee and since the search as well as recording of the satisfaction note and notices issued u/s 153C are all prior to 01.06.2015, therefore, the issue of notice u/s 153C in our opinion is not in accordance with law since such an amendment is not applicable to the assessee for the impugned assessment years. We, therefore, quash the assessment proceedings for all the 4 years being not in accordance with law for want of jurisdiction. Since we are quashing the orders on the basis of issue of 153C notices, therefore, the other arguments by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the seized material does not have a bearing on the income of the assessee or that unabated assessment should not be disturbed or no incriminating material was found in the course of third party search, etc are not being adjudicated being academic in nature. We, therefore, allow the appeals filed by the assessee on this legal issue. Since the assessee succeeds on this issue of validity of issue of notice i.e. validity of assessment u/s 52 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 153C in absence of proper satisfaction for which we have quashed all the assessments, the appeals filed by the Revenue become infructuous and are dismissed. 33. In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all the 3 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 25th June, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of2 the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, „A‟ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune 53 IT(SS)A Nos.36 to 39/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.51 to 53/PUN/2022 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 07.05.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 09.05.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order "