THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Deputy Commissi oner of In co me Tax, Central Circle-1 (1 ), Ah medabad (Appellant) Vs M/s. Priya Blu e Industries Pv t. Ltd . , 156 3/A, Ash irwad, Rupan i Sardarnagar Road, Bhavnagar PAN: AABCP2 808B (Resp ondent) Asses see b y : Shri Biren Shah, A. R. Revenue by : Shri S udhendu Das, CIT-D. R. Date of hearing : 13-02 -2 023 Date of pronouncement : 14-03 -2 023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These are two appeals filed by the Department against the common order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) for assessment years 2006-07 & 2007-08 Since common issues are involved in both the years under consideration, the appeals are being taken up together. IT(SS)A Nos. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2 2. The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal: Assessment year 2006-07 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that any addition during the assessment u/s.153A has to be confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search u/s.132(1) of the Act, even though, there is no such stipulation in sec.153A of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that sec.153A requires a notice to be issued requiring the assessee to furnish his return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and to assess or re-assess the total income of those six assessment years. This scheme of assessment or re-assessment of the total income of a person searched will become frivolous if no addition is allowed to be made for those six assessment years in the absence of any seized incriminating material. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that while computation of undisclosed income of the block period u/s.158BB was to be made on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of accounts, whereas, there is no such stipulation in sec.153A and sec.153C of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that assessment in relation to certain issues not related to the search and seizure may arise in any of the said six assessment years after the search u/s.132 is conducted in the case of the assessee, and that if the interpretation of the Id. CIT(A) were to hold it will not be possible to assess such income in the 153A proceedings. Further, no other parallel proceedings can be initiated to assess such income which is not emanating from incriminating documents. It is incumbent upon to the AO to assess the correct and true income of the assessee. I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 3 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 6. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.” Assessment year 2007-08 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that any addition during the assessment u/s.153A has to be confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search u/s. 132(1) of the Act, even though, there is no such stipulation in sec.153A of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that sec.153A requires a notice to be issued requiring the assessee to furnish his return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and to assess or re-assess the total income of those six assessment years/This scheme of assessment or re-assessment of the total income of a person searched will become frivolous if no addition is allowed to be made for those six assessment years in the absence of any seized incriminating material. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that while computation of undisclosed income of the block period u/s.158BB was to be made on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of accounts, whereas, there is no such stipulation in sec. 153A and sec. 153C of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that assessment in relation to certain issues not related to the search and seizure may arise in any of the said six assessment years after the search u/s. 132 is conducted I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 4 in the case of the assessee, and that if the interpretation of the Id. CIT(A) were to hold it will not be possible to assess such income in the 153A proceedings. Further, no other parallel proceedings can be initiated to assess such income which is not emanating from incriminating documents. It is incumbent upon to the AO to assess the correct and true income of the assessee. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 6. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.” 3. We shall first discuss assessment year 2006-07 and observation shall apply to assessment year 2007-08 as well. 4. The brief facts of the case are that search action was carried out in the case of assessee on 12-01-2010. The AO passed order under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 30-12-2011 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09 after making the following additions as tabulated below: Particula rs Disallowance u/s 14A Addition u/s 68 Interest on Such unsecured Loan Unaccounted sales Date of Filing original return of income 2004-05 10,92,210 — -- - 30/06/04 2005-06 21,31,793 1,05,65,0 00 2,07,638 - 28/10/05 I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 5 2006-07 20,38,573 2,42,05,0 00 6,72,911 5,58,25,315 02/12/06 2007-08 29,17,533 7,35,50,0 00 19,24,485 - 17/10/07 2008-09 28,56,589 37,20,000 3,86,288 - 20/09/08 4.1 Thereafter, CIT (A)-III, Ahmedabad party deleted the additions vide order dated 08-06-2012. Both the assessee and the Department filed appeals against the aforesaid order, which was set-aside by ITAT, Ahmedabad vide order dated 14-10-2019 to first decide on the issue of jurisdiction of passing order under section 153A of the Act in the alleged absence of any incriminating material found in the course of search. 5. In the set-aside proceedings, Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07 on the ground that the instant year was an unabated assessment year and there were no incriminating documents on the basis of which additions were made on various issues for the impugned assessment year, as tabulated above. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition under section 14A of the Act on the ground that assessee had already filed return of income prior to date of search and at the time limit for issue notice under section 143 (2) of the Act has already expired on date of search which means that the assessment year 2006-07 was an unabated assessment year. Further, since the additions under section 14A of the Act were not based on any incriminating material found during the I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 6 course of search, the addition was directed to be deleted. So far as addition u/s 68 of the Act is concerned, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that for all the assessment year under consideration, there is no whisper of any incriminating material found during the course of search on the basis of which the aforesaid addition was made. While passing the order, AO has referred to statement of Mr Sanjay Mehta recorded under section 131 of the Act relating to alleged unaccounted sales, but such transactions are not pertaining to the above assessment years. On perusal of assessment orders for such assessment years, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that AO has made addition of such unaccounted sales in assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively against such incriminating material cannot be correlated with unsecured loans taken by the assessee in assessment year 2000-05 to 2008- 09. Further, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that his predecessor CIT Appeals has already deleted addition under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly there is no case for making disallowance under section 68 of the Act as there was no incriminating material found with regard to the issue of addition and also the fact that the assessment of all five years had attained finality. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) directed the AO to delete disallowance made under section 68 of the Act. So far as addition of 5.58 crores being income from speculation business of Sanjay Sales Corporation is concerned, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition on the ground that the entire addition made is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search and since the assessment for this year has already attained finality, and therefore, following the decision of Saumya Constructions Private Limited, additions made by AO was directed to be deleted. I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 7 6. The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid relief given by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to the assessee for assessment year 2006-07. Before us, DR placed reliance on the observations made by the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. In response, the counsel for the assessee submitted that a perusal of the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) clearly points out that firstly, this is a case of unabated assessment year i.e. for assessment year 2006-07, the return of income was filed before the date of search and the time period of issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act had also expired and therefore it is a case of an unabated assessment year and secondly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has clearly observed that the entire additions which were made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, were not emanating from any incriminating documents found during the course of search. Accordingly, in view of various decisions on the subject, the assessment order is devoid of jurisdiction and hence liable to be set aside. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has given a categorical finding that for assessment a 2005-06, the addition were not made on the basis of any incriminating documents found during the course of search. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed from the facts of each of the additions that were made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, and gave a categorical finding that none of the additions were based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. Secondly, we observe that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has given a categorical finding that this is a case of an unabated assessment year i.e. the return was filed before the date I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 8 of search and the time period for issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act had also expired. In our considered view, in the instant set of facts, no incriminating materials was found during the course of search which could form the basis of initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act. We also observe that the instant year is an unabated assessment year when the assessment proceedings have already been concluded before the date of initiation of search. It is well-settled law that in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search in case of unabated assessment year, proceedings under section 153A of the Act cannot be initiated. 7.1 The Gujarat High Court in the of PCIT v. Rameshbhai Jivraj Desai[2020] 121 taxmann.com 333 (Gujarat) held that where no incriminating material in respect of an earlier assessment year for which assessment had already attained finality was unearthed during course of proceedings under section 153A, Assessing Officer while completing assessment under said section could not disturb completed assessment of assessee in respect of such earlier assessment year. 7.2 In the case of Sunrise Finlease (P.) Ltd.[2018] 89 taxmann.com 1 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where no incriminating evidence against assessee was found or seized during course of search so as to attract provisions of section 153A proceedings, no additions could be made on basis of statement of director of assessee company which were recorded under section 131 much later after search. The High Court while passing the order observed as under: I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 9 6. This court in the case of Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd. (supra), has held that in view of the mandate of sub-section (1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made. However, any addition or disallowance can be made only on the basis of material collected during the search or requisition. 7. In the facts of the present case, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact to the effect that no incriminating material had been found during the course of the search proceedings and that the statement of the director which is stated to have been recorded during the course of search under section 131 of the Act, and which forms the basis for the impugned addition, was recorded much later on 7.12.2009. In the light of the above cited decision, it was not permissible for the Assessing Officer to make any addition under section 153A of the Act when no incriminating material had been found during the course of the search. 7.3 In the case of Desai Construction (P.) Ltd.[2017] 81 taxmann.com 271 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that in absence of any incriminating material found during search, Assessing Officer, in assessment under section 153A, would not be entitled to interfere with assessee's claim I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 10 for deduction under section 80-IA, which was part of original assessment proceedings and such assessment had abated. 7.4 In the case of PCIT v. Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd.[2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that under section 153A, an assessment has to be made in relation to search or requisition, namely, in relation to material disclosed during search or requisition; if no incriminating material is found during search, no addition can be made on basis of material collected after search. The Gujarat High Court while passing the order observed as under: 16. Section 153A bears the heading “Assessment in case of search or requisition”. It is well settled as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the heading of the section can be regarded as a key to the interpretation of the operative portion of the section and if there is no ambiguity in the language or if it is plain and clear, then the heading used in the section strengthens that meaning. From the heading of section 153, the intention of the legislature is clear viz., to provide for assessment in case of search and requisition. When the very purpose of the provision is to make assessment in case of search or requisition, it goes without saying that the assessment has to have relation to the search or requisition. In other words, the assessment should be connected with something found during the search or requisition, viz., incriminating material which reveals undisclosed income. Thus, while in view of the mandate of sub-section (1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 11 requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance can be made only on the basis of material collected during the search or requisition. In case no incriminating material is found, as held by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) (supra), the earlier assessment would have to be reiterated. In case where pending assessments have abated, the Assessing Officer can pass assessment orders for each of the six years determining the total income of the assessee which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search or requisition. In case where a pending reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ...... 18. In this case, it is not the case of the appellant that any incriminating material in respect of the assessment year under consideration was found during the course of search. At the relevant time when the notice came to be issued under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income. Much later, at the fag end of the period within which the order under section 153A of the Act was to be made, in other words, when the limit for framing the assessment as provided under section 153 was about to expire, the notice has I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 12 been issued in the present case seeking to make the proposed addition of Rs.11,05,51,000/- on the basis of the material which was not found during the course of search, but on the basis of a statement of another person. In the opinion of this court, in a case like the present one, where an assessment has been framed earlier and no assessment or reassessment was pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, while computing the total income of the assessee under section 153A of the Act, additions or disallowances can be made only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the search or requisition. In the present case, it is an admitted position that no incriminating material was found during the course of search, however, it is on the basis of some material collected by the Assessing Officer much subsequent to the search, that the impugned additions came to be made. 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating material is found, notwithstanding that in relation to the year under consideration, no incriminating material is found, it would be permissible to make additions and disallowance in respect of all the six assessment years. In the opinion of this court, the said contention does not merit acceptance, inasmuch as, the assessment in respect of each of the six assessment years is a separate and distinct assessment. Under section 153A of the Act, an assessment has to be made in relation to the search or requisition, namely, in relation to material disclosed during the search or requisition. If in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating material is found, no addition or disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 13 exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur (supra). Besides, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the decision of this court in the case of Jayaben Ratilal Sorathia (supra) wherein it has been held that while it cannot be disputed that considering section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer can reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year. 7.5 In the case of PCIT v. Rameshbhai Jivraj Desai[2020] 120 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where assessee contended that invocation of provisions of section 153A and making disallowance/additions of bad debts of assessee by Assessing Officer was unjustified as no incriminating material against assessee was found or seized during search, Tribunal was justified in deleting impugned additions. 7.6 In the case of PCIT v. Dipak JashvantlalPanchal[2017] 88 taxmann.com 611 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that only undisclosed income and undisclosed assets detected during search can be brought to tax in assessment under section 153A of the Act. I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 14 7.7 In the case of PCIT v. Devangi[2017] 88 taxmann.com 610 (Gujarat), after the search conducted at the assessee's premises, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 153A of the Act on the basis of the incriminating material seized for the period of the assessment year 2004-05 onwards, and made the addition for the assessment years 2000- 01 to 2004-05. The Tribunal deleted the addition holding that only undisclosed income and undisclosed assets detected during the search could be brought to tax and in assessee's case no incriminating material was found with respect to the assessment years 2000-01 to 2004-05, at the time of search. The Gujarat High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the scope of section 153A was limited to assessing only search related income. 7.8 The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2015] 61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi) held that completed assessments can be interfered with by Assessing Officer while making assessment under section 153A only on basis of some incriminating material unearthed during course of search which was not produced or not already disclosed or made known in course of original assessment. While passing the order, the Delhi High Court observed as under: 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 15 person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 16 vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. Conclusion 38. The present appeals concern AYs, 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006- 07.On the date of the search the said assessments already stood completed. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed. 39. The question framed by the Court is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 40. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances no orders as to costs. 7.9 The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd [2015] 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bombay) held that no addition can be made in respect I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 17 of assessments which have become final if no incriminating material is found during search. The Kolkata Tribunal in case of Majestic Commercial (P.) Ltd [2020] 116 taxmann.com 412 (Kolkata - Trib.) held that in case of unabated assessment of an assessee, no addition is permissible in order under section 153A unless it is based on any incriminating material found during course of search. Again in the case of Mani Square v. ACIT, [2020] 118 taxmann.com 452 (Kolkata - Trib.), the Kolkata Tribunal held in case of unabated assessments of an assessee, no addition is permissible in order under section 153A, unless it is based on any tangible, cogent and relevant incriminating material found during course of search qua assessee and qua assessment year. The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Wind World India Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 279 (Mumbai) held that in case of an unabated assessment, no addition in absence of any incriminating material emerging during course of search and seizure proceedings conducted under section 132(1) can be made in hands of assessee. 7.10 In our view, the cases cited above squarely applied to assessee’s set of facts wherein, the original assessment was already apply completed by the Ld. Assessing Officer before the search was conducted. During the search operation which was carried by the Department, admittedly, no incriminating material was discovered, which formed the basis of additions made in respect of assessments already concluded. We note that at the time when the search operations were carried out, the original assessment proceedings had been finalized. We also note that during the course of search operation no fresh material or incriminating evidence was found by I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 18 the Department. Thus, the assessment was not pending when the search took place in this case. The assessment therefore did not abate as per the provisions of second proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act. It is a settled position of law that in case of unabated assessment to be made u/s. 153A of the Act no addition could be made de-hors the material found during the search. In view of the above factual and legal position, in our view, the ld. CIT has correctly allowed the appeal of the assessee in the instant facts, and on inference is called for in the order of ld. CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed. Assessment Year 2007-08: 9. Since common issues are involved for both the years under consideration, our observations for assessment year 2006-07 shall apply to assessment year 2007-08 as well. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed for assessment year 2007-08 as well on grounds of jurisdiction itself. Since, we have quashed the assessment proceedings initiated u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on grounds of jurisdiction itself, we are not discussing with the Grounds of Appeal relating to the merits of the case. Accordingly, the Grounds of Appeal raised by the Department relating to the merits of the case are not being discussed. I.T(SS).A No. 8 & 9/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Page No. DCIT vs. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. 19 11. In the combined result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed for both assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Order pronounced in the open court on 14-03-2023 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 14/03/2023 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/ आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद