M/S LOTUS INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD,DELHI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KANPUR

ITSSA 111/LKW/2021

AI Insights

The case involves four appeals filed by M/s Lotus Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Prabhu Aastha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. against the assessment orders passed under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 and 2017-18. The assessments were challenged on grounds including lack of jurisdiction, erroneous additions without proper evidence, and mechanical approval of assessments by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. The Tribunal examined the procedural validity of the approvals and the substantive additions made to the income of the assessees. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by precedents and statutory requirements emphasizing the need for a thorough and independent application of mind in the approval process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 43627 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: National Thermal Power Co. Limited vs. Commissioner of income tax, Pr. CIT vs. Subodh Agarwal, Pr. CIT vs. Siddarth Gupta, Sapna Gupta vs. DCIT, Navin Jain vs DCIT, Rohit Gupta vs. DCIT, M/s Quality Structure Pvt. Ltd. vs. DIT, Kamal Kant Verma vs. DCIT, Sachin Verma vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Evidence Act, 1872
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE; NAMITA S. PANDEY
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH JAISWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 48; 153A; 13; 69A

Judgement Text

"I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 & 17-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 113/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 M/s Lotus Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 6926, Jaipuria Mills, Clock Tower, Sabji Mandi, Delhi. PAN:AABCL1224D Vs. Dy.C.I.T., Central Circle-1, Kanpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.(SS)A. No. 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2017-18 M/s Prabhu Aastha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 123/778A, Fazalganj, Kanpur. PAN:AAECP3166D Vs. Dy.C.I.T., Central Circle-1, Kanpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER BENCH: These four appeals have been filed by the assessees against the impugned appellate orders all dated 17/08/2021 passed by learned CIT(A) Appellant by Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent by Smt. Namita S. Pandey, CIT (D.R.) I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 & 17-18 2 pertaining to assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 and 2017-18. The grounds of appeal and the additional grounds of appeal are as under: I.T.(SS)A.No.111/Lkw/2021 “1. That the assessment framed is void-ab-initio as being passed on the basis of invalid and unlawful approval u/s 153D by Additional CIT, Central Kanpur and assessment deserves to be quashed by your honour and may be declared as nullity or any other relief which your honour may deem as appropriate to be given to the assessee in the given circumstances of the case as the order is passed without application of mind. 2. That the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in completing the assessment u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961 without jurisdiction. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) as well as ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition on the basis of presumption without any enquiry from the concerned persons whose names are appearing in the sheets or any cross examination of the person from whose possession the alleged document was found. 4. That the ld. CIT(A) as well as ld. Assessing Officer has failed to discharge the onus casted upon him to prove that the document is true and correct to determine the income particularly when the appellant has denied the document and working of seized material. 5. That the ld. CIT(A) as well as ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition without any corroborative material or evidence in support of the addition especially when the assessment has been completed subject to and consequent to search & seizure operation conducted in the assessee group. 6. That the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of the entire difference of the sheet as income instead of profit element that could only be earned from the booking amount appearing in the sheet in any real estate transactions which is settled principle of law. I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 & 17-18 3 7. That the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I. T. Act even though the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) has accepted that the alleged receipts are from the real estate business conducted by the appellant. 8. That the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition without rejection of books of account making the addition unwarranted and unlawful without lawful jurisdiction.” Additional Grounds of Appeal ( I.T.(SS)A.No.111/Lkw/2021) \"1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer on the basis of electronic data in absence of any verification of electronic data as per the mandatory procedure u/s 65A & 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 before adopting the electronic data as evidence by the ld. Assessing Officer against the appellant for the purpose of assessment.\" It is humbly prayed that the above ground of appeal is purely legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter may very kindly be admitted in the interest of justice. Reliance is placed upon the apex court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Limited, vs. Commissioner of income tax reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC).” I.T.(SS)A.No.112/Lkw/2021 “1. That the assessment framed is void-ab-initio as being passed on the basis of invalid and unlawful approval u/s 153D by Additional CIT, Central Kanpur and assessment deserves to be quashed by your honour and may be declared as nullity or any other relief which your honour may deem as appropriate to be given to the assessee in the given circumstances of the case as the order is passed without application of mind. 2. That the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in completing the assessment u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961 without jurisdiction. I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 & 17-18 4 3. That the ld. CIT(A) as well as ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition on the basis of presumption without any enquiry from the concerned persons whose names are appearing in the sheets or any cross examination of the person from whose possession the alleged document was found. 4. That the ld. CIT(A) as well as ld. Assessing Officer has failed to discharge the onus casted upon him to prove that the document is true and correct to determine the income particularly when the appellant has denied the document and working of seized material. 5. That the ld. CIT(A) as well as ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition without any corroborative material or evidence in support of the addition especially when the assessment has been completed subject to and consequent to search & seizure operation conducted in the assessee group. 6. That the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of the entire difference of the sheet as income instead of profit element that could only be earned from the booking amount appearing in the sheet in any real estate transactions which is settled principle of law. 7. That the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I. T. Act even though the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) has accepted that the alleged receipts are from the real estate business conducted by the appellant. 8. That the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition without rejection of books of account making the addition unwarranted and unlawful without lawful jurisdiction.” Additional Grounds of Appeal ( I.T.(SS)A.No.112/Lkw/2021) \"1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer on the basis of electronic data in absence of any verification of electronic data as per the mandatory procedure u/s 65A & 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 before adopting the electronic data as evidence by the ld. I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 & 17-18 5 Assessing Officer against the appellant for the purpose of assessment.\" It is humbly prayed that the above ground of appeal is purely legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter may very kindly be admitted in the interest of justice. Reliance is placed upon the apex court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Limited, vs. Commissioner of income tax reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC).” I.T.(SS)A.No.113/Lkw/2021 “1. That the assessment framed is void-ab-initio as being passed on the basis of invalid and unlawful approval u/s 153D by Additional CIT, Central Kanpur and assessment deserves to be quashed by your honour and may be declared as nullity or any other relief which your honour may deem as appropriate to be given to the assessee in the given circumstances of the case as the order is passed without application of mind. 2. That the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in completing the assessment u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961 without jurisdiction. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) as well as ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition on the basis of presumption without any enquiry from the concerned persons whose names are appearing in the sheets or any cross examination of the person from whose possession the alleged document was found. 4. That the ld. CIT(A) as well as ld. Assessing Officer has failed to discharge the onus casted upon him to prove that the document is true and correct to determine the income particularly when the appellant has denied the document and working of seized material. 5. That the ld. CIT(A) as well as ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition without any corroborative material or evidence in support of the addition especially when the assessment has been completed subject to and consequent to search & seizure operation conducted in the assessee group. I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 & 17-18 6 6. That the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of the entire difference of the sheet as income instead of profit element that could only be earned from the booking amount appearing in the sheet in any real estate transactions which is settled principle of law. 7. That the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I. T. Act even though the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) has accepted that the alleged receipts are from the real estate business conducted by the appellant. 8. That the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition without rejection of books of account making the addition unwarranted and unlawful without lawful jurisdiction.” Additional Grounds of Appeal ( I.T.(SS)A.No.113/Lkw/2021) \"1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer on the basis of electronic data in absence of any verification of electronic data as per the mandatory procedure u/s 65A & 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 before adopting the electronic data as evidence by the ld. Assessing Officer against the appellant for the purpose of assessment.\" It is humbly prayed that the above ground of appeal is purely legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter may very kindly be admitted in the interest of justice. Reliance is placed upon the apex court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Limited, vs. Commissioner of income tax reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC).” I.T.(SS)A.No.114/Lkw/2021 “1. That the assessment framed is void-ab-initio as being passed on the basis of invalid and unlawful approval u/s 153D by Additional CIT, Central Kanpur and assessment deserves to be quashed by your honour and may be declared as nullity or any other relief which your honour may deem as appropriate to be I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 & 17-18 7 given to the assessee in the given circumstances of the case as the order is passed without application of mind. 2. That the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition without giving any show cause notice to the appellant before making any addition while framing assessment u/s 143(3) making the assessment in violation of principle of natural justice and the assessment deserves to be held nullity and quashed by your honour or any other appropriate relief. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering the sale proceeds of Rs.1,74,70,332/- as out of books sale and reducing the loss to Rs.40,19,70,757/- instead of applying gross profit on shortage of stock as well as on excess of stock being settled principle of law as the alleged excess stock has been purchased from the sale of shortage of stock already recorded in the books. 4. That the assessment completed by ld. Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) order is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful.” (A.1) The appeals filed by the assessee are beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay duly supported by affidavit; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeals for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s applications for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals. In view of the foregoing, and being convinced with the pleadings of the assessee, the delay in filing of these appeals is condoned; and the appeal are admitted for hearing. (B) These four appeals pertain to assessees M/s Lotus Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Prabhu Aastha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Separate assessment orders in the case of M/s Lotus Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. each dated 29/12/2018 were passed u/s 153A of the Act for assessment years 2012-13, I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 & 17-18 8 2013-14 and 2014-15. The income of the assessee was determined at Rs.31,41,089/- (rounded off to Rs.31,41,090/-) for assessment year 2012-13 as against returned income of Rs.4,95,089/-. In assessment year 2013-14, the assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.2,60,79,695/- (rounded off to Rs.2,60,79,700/-) as against returned income of Rs.80,14,098/-, and as against total income of Rs.80,30,020/- as per earlier assessment order dated 14/03/2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. In assessment year 2014-15, the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.86,65,770/- as against returned income of Rs.67,69,270/-. In the earlier assessment order dated 24/11/2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act also wherein also the assessee’s total income was determined for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.67,69,270/- In the case of M/s Prabhu Aastha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. assessment order for assessment year 2017-18 was passed u/s 153A of the Act on 30/12/2018, whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at a loss of Rs.40,79,39,668/- (rounded off to loss of Rs.40,79,39,670/-) as against returned loss of Rs.41,94,41,089/-. The aforesaid assessment orders in the case of M/s Lotus Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 were passed by the Assessing Officer after obtaining approval of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range- Kanpur vide letter bearing F.No. Addl.CIT(CR)/KNP/Approval u/s 153D/2018-19/1519 dated 29/12/2018. Similarly the aforesaid assessment order for assessment year 2017-18 dated 30/12/2018 in the case of M/s Prabhu Aastha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. was passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-Kanpur, granted vide her office letter bearing F.No. Addl.CIT(CR)/KNP/Approval u/s 153D/2018-19/1520 dated 30/12/2018. The assessee filed appeals before the learned CIT(A). In the impugned consolidated order dated 17/08/2021 for M/s Lotus Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 & 17-18 9 learned CIT(A) revised the quantum of additions made by the Assessing Officer. He directed the Assessing Officer to make further additions in assessment year 2012-13 and assessment year 2014-15, whereas he directed the Assessing Officer to give partial relief to the assessee in assessment year 2013-14. In the case of M/s Prabhu Aastha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., the learned CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 vide impugned appellate order dated 17/08/2021. The present appeals before us have been filed by the two assessees against the respective impugned orders of learned CIT(A). (C) In the course of appellate proceedings in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the paper book in two volumes was submitted by M/s Lotus Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., containing the following particulars: I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 & 17-18 10 Further a paper book was also filed from the side of M/s Prabhu Aastha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. containing the following particulars: I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 & 17-18 11 (D) At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee began with the contention that the approval granted by learned Addl. CIT u/s 153D of the Act, for passing the assessment orders was done in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. He drew our attention to approval granted by the Addl. CIT vide the aforesaid letter dated 29/12/2018 in the case of M/s Lotus Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. for assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15. He further drew our attention to the contents of the aforesaid approval letter dated 29/12/2018, on perusal of which it emerges that the approval was sought by the Assessing Officer on 29/12/2018 and on 29/12/2018 itself, the approval was given by the Addl. CIT. The learned Counsel for the assessee further drew our attention to order sheets forming part of the respective assessment records, which also showed that approvals were sought by the Assessing Officer on 29/12/2018, and approval was granted by the Addl. CIT on the same day i.e. on 29/12/2018 itself. He also drew our attention to the fact that the Addl. CIT granted approval to a total of 48 cases on 29/12/2018, a list of which is part of the I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 & 17-18 12 paper book filed from assessee’s side. He contended that it was humanly impossible for the Addl. CIT to exercise due application of mind before granting approval in such a large number of cases having regard to the enormity of materials to be considered (assessment records, seized materials, statements, bank transactions, appraisal report of the Investigation Wing, submissions made by/on behalf of the assessee, reasoning given by the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order, etc.) for due application of mind on the part of the Addl. CIT within a short span of the same working day. He also contended that the assessments made by the Assessing Officer were vitiated due to approval granted by the Addl. CIT in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. Moreover, he also contended that the absence of due application of mind by the Addl. CIT and the grant of approval in mechanical manner was fatal to the assessments made in pursuance of the approvals so granted by Addl. CIT. Similarly, he contended, that the assessment order for assessment year 2017-18 passed by the Assessing Officer in the case of M/s Prabhu Aastha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. was also vitiated by approval given by Addl. CIT in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. In this regard he drew our attention to approval granted by Addl. CIT vide aforesaid letter dated 30/12/2018, in the case of M/s Prabhu Aastha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2017-18. He also drew our attention to the fact that the Addl. CIT had granted approval on 30/12/2018 itself in a total of 82 cases vide letters F.No. Addl.CIT(CR)/KNP/Approval u/s 153D/2018-19/1520 and F.No. Addl.CIT(CR)/KNP/Approval u/s 153D/2018-19/1521 each dated 30/12/2018. He also took us through the paper book to highlight that out of the aforesaid 82 cases in which approval was given by the same Addl. CIT on 30/12/2018, the Assessing Officer had sought for approval in more than 67 cases on the same day, i.e. on 30/12/2018 itself; and that in the I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 & 17-18 13 remaining cases, the approval was sought by the Assessing Officer on the preceding date i.e. 29/12/2018 vide separate letters dated 30/12/2018 and 28/12/2018 respectively. (D.1) On this issue, the Departmental Representative for Revenue supported the action of the Addl. CIT in giving approvals u/s 153D of the Act in the aforesaid cases. She submitted that it was the normal practice that the Assessing Officer and Addl. CIT engaged in periodical discussion regarding assessment proceedings and therefore, it was possible for the Addl. CIT to grant approval to draft assessment orders after application of mind in a large number of cases though time available was short. (D.2) In his rejoinder, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was nothing on record to suggest that there was periodical discussion between the Assessing Officer and the Addl. CIT. He contended that if there was any such discussion, the details of such discussion should have been properly narrated and placed on record. In the absence of any such materials on record, there was no basis to draw inference that the Addl. CIT had granted approval after proper consideration of all relevant materials and after due application of mind. (D.2.1) We have heard both sides and we have also perused the materials on record. There is no dispute that approvals were given by the Addl. CIT in a huge number of cases (as referred to in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the assessee, discussed in foregoing paragraph (D) of this order, within a extremely short period of time (on the same date on which approval was sought by the Assessing Officer, in most of the cases; and on the next date in the remaining cases). There is also no dispute that the relevant materials to be considered by the Addl. CIT before granting of I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 & 17-18 14 approval is enormous, as contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee and referred to in foregoing paragraph (D) of this order. The requirement of statutory approval of draft assessment order is an inbuilt protection against any unjust, improper, illegal or arbitrary exercise of power of the Assessing Officer. This cannot be done in a mechanical manner, without due application of independent mind by the Addl. CIT on the basis of due consideration of all relevant material. The requirement of prior approval of a superior authority i.e. the Addl. CIT, requires that Addl. CIT should give due consideration to all relevant materials and appraise them properly in order to appreciate the factual and the legal aspects. It is well settled in law that statutory approval by superior authority must be granted only on the basis of proper consideration of all relevant materials, and further that the approval must reflect the due application of mind to the facts of the case and to the applicable law. Therefore, we are in agreement with the view advanced by learned Counsel for the assessee that the assessments made by the Assessing Officer were vitiated due to approval granted by the Addl. CIT in a mechanical manner without due application of mind; and further, that the absence of due application of mind by the Addl. CIT and the grant of approval in mechanical manner was fatal to the assessments made in pursuance of the approvals so granted by Addl. CIT. In the case of Pr. CIT vs. Subodh Agarwal [2023] 149 taxmann.com 373 (Allahabad), it was held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court that it was humanly impossible to go through the records of 38 cases in one day to apply independent mind to appraise the materials before the approving authority and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court upheld the conclusion drawn by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that it was the mechanical exercise of power. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that the approval given in such a manner vitiated the entire assessment I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 & 17-18 15 proceedings. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Siddarth Gupta [2023] 147 taxmann.com 305 (Allahabad). In addition to the aforesaid orders of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, the issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of Co-ordinate Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in the cases of Sapna Gupta vs. DCIT (order dated 07/10/2021 in I.T.(SS)A.No.424/Lkw/2019), Navin Jain vs DCIT (order dated 03/08/2021 in I.T.(SS)A.No.424/Lkw/2019), Rohit Gupta vs. DCIT (order dated 04/07/2022 in I.T.A. No.115/Lkw/2021), M/s Quality Structure Pvt. Ltd. vs. DIT (order dated 30/09/2024 in I.T.(SS)A.No.679 & 680). The SLP filed by Revenue on this issue was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2024] 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC). Same view was taken by ITAT in Kamal Kant Verma vs. DCIT in I.T.(SS)A. No.50 to 53/Lkw/2022, Sachin Verma vs. DCIT in I.T.(SS)A. No.54/Lkw/2022 and Sachin Verma vs DCIT in I.T.A. No.55 to 59/Lkw/2022. Respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, and in view of foregoing discussion, it is held that the assessment orders passed in pursuance of approvals given by Addl. CIT in a mechanical manner without due application of mind, vitiated the entire assessment proceedings, which was fatal to the assessment orders. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned appellate orders of the learned CIT(A) in the present four appeals before us; and the corresponding assessment orders each dated 29/12/2018 in the case of M/s Lotus Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15; are annulled. Similarly, assessment order dated 30/12/2018 in the case of M/s Prabhu Aastha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2017-18 is also annulled, based on the same reasoning. (E) As we have already annulled the assessment orders in the foregoing paragraph No.(D.2.1) of this order, the grounds taken by the assessee in I.T.(SS)A. Nos.111 to 114/Lkw/2021 Assessment Years:2012-13 to 14-15 & 17-18 16 the appeals on remaining disputes become merely academic in nature and need not be decided. Therefore, we decline to express any opinion on the same. For the same reason, the issue regarding admissibility and merits of additional grounds of appeal also become merely academic in nature and therefore, need not be decided. We decline to express any opinion on the same. (F) In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. (Order was pronounced in the open court on 26/03/2025) Sd/. Sd/. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:26/03/2025 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., 5. CIT(A) Assistant Registrar "