NARAYAN DAS LALWANI,BHOPAL V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITSSA 83/IND/2024

AI Insights

This case involves a series of appeals filed by Shri Narayandas Lalwani, the proprietor of M/s. Rattumal Ramrakhiyomal, against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals-3, Bhopal), which arose from a consolidated assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I, Bhopal under sections 153C/144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18. The appeals were consolidated due to their relatedness and were heard together for convenience. The primary legal issues revolved around the validity of the assessments made under section 153C, the jurisdiction to issue notices, and the adequacy of the approvals granted under section 153D. The ITAT noted the non-participation of the assessee in the proceedings and decided to restore the matters to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822611 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Ojjus Medicare P. Ltd (2024) (Del HC), Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) (Kar HC), Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) (SC), Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (2023) (SC), UK Paints (Overseas) Ltd (2023) (SC), Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) (Del HC), Subash Dabas (2024) (Del HC), MDLR Hotels P Ltd (2024) (Del HC), Serajuddin & Co (2023) (Ori HC), Anuj Bansal (2023) (Del HC), Sapna Gupta (2022) (All HC), Karina Airlines International Ltd (2024) (Del HC), Saksham Commodities Ltd (2024) (Del HC), Agni Vishnu Ventures (P) Ltd (2024) (Mad HC), Gali Janardhana Reddy (2023) (Kar HC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORTHEASSESSEE I.E.; EACHYEAR; EACHASSESSEESEPARATELY; FORTHEASSESSEE I.E.; EACHYEAR; EACHASSESSEE; FORTHEASSESSEE I.E.; EACHYEAR; EACHASSESSEE; FORTHEASSESSEE I.E.; EACHYEAR; EACHASSESSEE; FORTHEASSESSEE I.E.; EACHYEAR; EACHASSESSEE; FORTHEASSESSEE I.E.; EACHYEAR; EACHASSESSEE; FORTHEASSESSEE I.E.; EACHYEAR; EACHASSESSEE; SHRIANUPSINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRISUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Assessment record
• Section: 132; 69C

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 13 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos.80 to 86/Ind/2024 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2017-18) Shri Narayandas Lalwani, Proprietor of M/s. Rattumal Ramrakhiyomal, Main Road Bairagarh, Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. DCIT Central Circle-,1 Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: ABAPL8237B Assessee by Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, AR Revenue by Shri Anup Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.12.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Bench: This bunch of seven (7) appeals has been filed by assessee impugning a consolidated order of first-appeal dated 14.06.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals-3, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of a consolidated assessment-order dated 24.12.2019 passed by DCIT, Central-I, Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 153C/144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12 to 2017-18. Printed from counselvise.com Shri Narayandas Lalwani IT(SS)A Nos.80 to 86/Ind/2024 AYs:2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 2 of 13 2. Since these appeals relate to the same assessee and arise from same orders of lower-authorities; they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 3. The background facts leading to present appeals are such that the assessee/appellant is an individual engaged in the business of trading of clothes and related items. A search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 20.12.2016 upon one “Vaswani Group” wherein information/material relating to assessee was found. Accordingly, the cases of assessee were taken up for proceedings u/s 153C and which ultimately culminated into passing of assessment-order dated 24.12.2019 u/s 153C/144 for seven AYs 2011-12 to 2017-18. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeals before CIT(A) but did not get any relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in these appeals before us. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds for respective years: IT(SS)A No.80/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2011-12: Original Grounds in Form No. 36: “Gr.No.1: On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s 153C for AY 11-12 is invalid as without having jurisdiction to issue notice u/s153C; first proviso to sec 153C, date of search shall be date of receiving documents by AO of the assessee; satisfaction note recorded on 15-3-19 shall be considered date of search; AY11-12 would be 'relevant AY' as per Expl.1 to sec 153A(1) as amended by FA, 2017 (wef.1-4-17); fourth proviso to sec 153A(1), there is escaped income in aggregate for AY11-12 & 12-13 is Rs. 35,86,005 which is not more than Rs. 50 lakhs; in absence of escaped income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more in relevant Printed from counselvise.com Shri Narayandas Lalwani IT(SS)A Nos.80 to 86/Ind/2024 AYs:2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 3 of 13 AY or in aggregate in the relevant AYs, notice u/s 153C would be invalid and assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Ojjus Medicare P. Ltd (2024) (Del HC).\" Gr.No.2: \"On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s 153C for AY11-12 is invalid; there is consolidated satisfaction note recorded for 6 years i.e. AY11-12 to 16-17 on 15-3-19; in absence of separate satisfaction note recorded for AY11-12, notice u/s 153C would be invalid & assessment made u/s 153C would also be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) (Kar HC); Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) (SC).\" Gr.No.3: \"On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 42,792 & Rs. 8,05,331; on deemed date of search on 15-3-19, AY11-12 had already been completed; no assessment was pending for AY11-12 and there is no incriminating material found during the course of search from the searched premises (Vaswani Gr.) which is linked to the addition of Rs. 42,792 & Rs. 8,05,331 for AY11-12; in absence of this, addition of Rs. 42,792 & Rs. 8,05,331 is not sustainable in the eyes of law for an unabated year while making search assessment u/s153C and thus, it is liable to be deleted; relied on Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (2023) (SC); UK Paints (Overseas) Ltd (2023) (SC).\" Gr.No.4: \"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, approval granted u/s 153D dt.24-12- 19 by Addl. CIT is consolidated approval in 35 cases for 5 assessees on same day; on letter dt. 24-12-19 for seeking approval; conditional/mechanical approval without application of mind based on certification/declaration given by AO; in absence of any satisfaction recorded by Addl. CIT in approval for AY11-12 for the assessee (i.e., each year, each assessee separately); he has not even mentioned in the approval order u/s 153D that he has perused the assessment record; in absence of a valid & proper approval as mandated by law u/s 153D, assessment made u/s 153C would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) (Del HC); Subash Dabas (2024) (Del HC); MDLR Hotels P Ltd (2024) (Del HC); Serajuddin & Co (2023) (Ori HC); Anuj Bansal (2023) (Del HC); Sapna Gupta (2022) (All HC).\" Gr. No.5: \"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 42,792, which is unjustified and is liable to be deleted.\" Gr.No.6: \"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 8,05,331 on NP estimation of 5% on disclosed sales of Rs. 2,41,24,909 of cloth business audited u/s 44AB; 5% estimation is without any basis & without giving any comparable cases of other assesses on similar line of cloth business; addition is liable to be deleted.\" Gr.No.7: \"The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.\" Printed from counselvise.com Shri Narayandas Lalwani IT(SS)A Nos.80 to 86/Ind/2024 AYs:2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 4 of 13 Additional Grounds by an application under Rule 11: Addl.Gr.No.1: \"On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s 153C for AY11-12 is invalid as without having jurisdiction to issue notice u/s153C for AY11-12; search u/s132 conducted on Vasvani Gr. on 20-12-16; amendment made by FA, 2017 wef. 1-4-17 would not be applicable; first proviso to sec153C, date of search shall be the date of receiving documents by AO of the assessee, satisfaction note recorded on 15-3-19 shall be considered the date of search; thus, AY11-12 would be beyond the block of 6 AYs; assessment made u/s153C for AY11-12 is barred by limitation, is liable to be quashed; relied on Karina Airlines International Ltd (2024) (Del HC). IT(SS)A No.81/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2012-13: Original Grounds in Form No. 36: “Gr.No.1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s153C for AY12-13 is invalid as without having jurisdiction to issue notice u/s153C; first proviso to sec153C, date of search shall be date of receiving documents by AO of the assessee; satisfaction note recorded on 15-3-19 shall be considered date of search; AY12-13 would be ‘relevant AY’ as per Expl.1 to sec153A(1) as amended by FA, 2017 (wef.1-4-17); fourth proviso to sec153A(1), there is escaped income in aggregate for AY11-12 & 12-13 is Rs.35,86,005 which is not more than Rs.50 lakhs; in absence of escaped income of Rs.50 lakhs or more in relevant AY or in aggregate in the relevant AYs, notice u/s153C would be invalid and assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Ojjus Medicare PLtd (2024) (Del HC).” Gr.No.2: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s153C for AY12-13 is invalid; there is consolidated satisfaction note recorded for 6 years i.e., AY11-12 to 16-17 on 15-3-19; in absence of separate satisfaction note recorded for AY12-13, notice u/s153C would be invalid & assessment made u/s153C would also be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) (Kar HC); Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) (SC). Gr.No.3: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, approval granted u/s153D dt.24-12- 19 by Addl. CIT is consolidated approval in 35 cases for 5 assessees on same day; on letter dt.24-12-19 for seeking approval; conditional/ mechanical approval without application of mind based on certification/ declaration given by AO; in absence of any satisfaction recorded by Addl.CIT in approval for AY12-13 for the assessee (i.e., each year, each assessee separately); he has not even mentioned in the approval order u/s153D that he has perused the assessment record; in absence of a valid & proper approval as mandated by law u/s153D, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) (Del HC); Subash Dabas (2024) (Del HC); MDLR Hotels P Ltd (2024) (Del HC); Serajuddin & Co (2023) (Ori HC); Anuj Bansal (2023) (Del HC); Sapna Gupta (2022) (All HC). Gr.No.5: Printed from counselvise.com Shri Narayandas Lalwani IT(SS)A Nos.80 to 86/Ind/2024 AYs:2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 5 of 13 “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT (A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.79,027, which is unjustified and is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.6: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.7,42,930 on NP estimation of 5% on disclosed sales of Rs.2,18,50,950 of cloth business audited u/s 44AB; 5% estimation is without any basis & without giving any comparable cases of other assesses on similar line of cloth business; addition is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.7: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.35,86,005 on undisclosed investment made u/s69C merely based on noting in diary found at third party premises & statement recorded of third party which had retracted later on; without proving copy of such statement recorded & without giving proper opportunity to cross examine the person, addition, merely on presumption & surmises without bringing any corroborative material/ evidence on record, is unsustainable in the eyes of law, is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.8: “The appellant craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.” Additional Grounds by an application under Rule 11: Addl.Gr.No.1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s 153C for AY11-12 is invalid as without having jurisdiction to issue notice u/s153C for AY11-12; search u/s132 conducted on Vasvani Gr. on 20-12-16; amendment made by FA, 2017 wef.1-4-17 would not be applicable; first proviso to sec153C, date of search shall bethe date of receiving documents by AO of the assessee; satisfaction note recorded on 15-3-19 shall be considered the date of search; thus, AY11-12 would be beyond the block of 6 AYs; assessment made u/s153C for AY11-12 is barred by limitation, is liable to be quashed; relied on Karina Airlines International Ltd (2024) (Del HC).” IT(SS)A No.82/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2013-14: Original Grounds in Form No. 36: Gr.No.1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s153C for AY13-14 is invalid; there is consolidated satisfaction note recorded for 6 years i.e., AY11-12 to 16-17 on 15-3-19; in absence of separate satisfaction note recorded for AY13-14, notice u/s153C would be invalid & assessment made u/s153C would also be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) (Kar HC); Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) (SC). Gr.No.2: Printed from counselvise.com Shri Narayandas Lalwani IT(SS)A Nos.80 to 86/Ind/2024 AYs:2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 6 of 13 “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.79,027 & Rs.6,91,458; on deemed date of search on 15-3-19, AY13-14 had already been completed; no assessment was pending for AY13-14 and there is no incriminating material found during the course of search from the searched premises (Vaswani Gr.) which is linked to the addition of Rs.79,027 & Rs.6,91,458 for AY13-14; in absence of this, addition of Rs.79,027 & Rs.6,91,458 is not sustainable in the eyes of law for an unabated year while making search assessment u/s153C and thus, it is liable to be deleted; relied on Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (2023) (SC); UK Paints (Overseas) Ltd (2023) (SC).” Gr.No.3: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, approval granted u/s153D dt.24-12- 19 by Addl.CIT is consolidated approval in 35 cases for 5 assessees on same day; on letter dt.24-12-19 for seeking approval; conditional/ mechanical approval without application of mind based on certification/ declaration given by AO; in absence of any satisfaction recorded by Addl.CIT in approval for AY13-14 for the assessee (i.e., each year, each assessee separately); he has not even mentioned in the approval order u/s153D that he has perused the assessment record; in absence of a valid & proper approval as mandated by law u/s153D, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) (Del HC); Subash Dabas (2024) (Del HC); MDLR Hotels P Ltd (2024) (Del HC); Serajuddin & Co (2023) (Ori HC); Anuj Bansal (2023) (Del HC); Sapna Gupta (2022) (All HC). Gr.No.4: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT (A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.79,027, which is unjustified and is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.5: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.6,91,458 on NP estimation of 5% on disclosed sales of Rs.2,29,63,676 of cloth business audited u/s44AB; 5% estimation is without any basis & without giving any comparable cases of other assesses on similar line of cloth business; addition is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.6: “The appellant craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.” Additional Grounds by an application under Rule 11: Addl.Gr.No.1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, notice u/s153C dt.20-3-19 for AY13-14 is invalid; there is no mention about any undisclosed income bearing on assessee for AY13-14 in the ‘satisfaction note’ made by the AO of assessee on 15-3-19; in absence of such finding for AY13-14 in the ‘satisfaction note’ dt.15-3-19;notice u/s153C dt.20-3-19 for AY13-14 would be invalid & assessment made u/s153C would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Saksham Commodities Ltd (2024) (Del HC); Agni Vishnu Ventures (P) Ltd (2024) (Mad HC); Gali Janardhana Reddy (2023) (Kar HC).” IT(SS)A No.83/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2014-15: Printed from counselvise.com Shri Narayandas Lalwani IT(SS)A Nos.80 to 86/Ind/2024 AYs:2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 7 of 13 Original Grounds in Form No. 36: “Gr.No.1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s153C for AY14-15 is invalid; there is consolidated satisfaction note recorded for 6 years i.e., AY11-12 to 16-17 on 15-3-19; in absence of separate satisfaction note recorded for AY14-15, notice u/s153C would be invalid & assessment made u/s153C would also be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) (Kar HC); Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) (SC). Gr.No.2: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, approval granted u/s153D dt.24-12- 19 by Addl.CIT is consolidated approval in 35 cases for 5 assessees on same day; on letter dt.24-12-19 for seeking approval; conditional/ mechanical approval without application of mind based on certification/ declaration given by AO; in absence of any satisfaction recorded by Addl.CIT in approval for AY14-15 for the assessee (i.e., each year, each assessee separately); he has not even mentioned in the approval order u/s153D that he has perused the assessment record; in absence of a valid & proper approval as mandated by law u/s153D, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) (Del HC); Subash Dabas (2024) (Del HC); MDLR Hotels P Ltd (2024) (Del HC); Serajuddin & Co (2023) (Ori HC); Anuj Bansal (2023) (Del HC); Sapna Gupta (2022) (All HC). Gr.No.3: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT (A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.85,323, which is unjustified and is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.4: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.6,68,477 on NP estimation of 5% on disclosed sales of Rs.2,31,06,159 of cloth business audited u/s44AB; 5% estimation is without any basis & without giving any comparable cases of other assesses on similar line of cloth business; addition is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.5: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.12,23,800 on unexplained investment (i.e., 20% share in construction cost of 13 shops) made u/s 69C merely based on noting in diary found at third party premises & statement recorded of third party which had retracted later on; without proving copy of such statement recorded & without giving proper opportunity to cross examine the person, addition, merely on presumption & surmises without bringing any corroborative material/ evidence on record, is unsustainable in the eyes of law, is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.6: “The appellant craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.” Additional Grounds by an application under Rule 11: Addl.Gr.No.1: Printed from counselvise.com Shri Narayandas Lalwani IT(SS)A Nos.80 to 86/Ind/2024 AYs:2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 8 of 13 “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, notice u/s153C dt.20-3-19 for AY14-15 is invalid; there is no mention about any undisclosed income bearing on assessee for AY14- 15 in the ‘satisfaction note’ made by the AO of assessee on 15-3-19; in absence of such finding for AY14-15 in the ‘satisfaction note’ dt.15-3-19; notice u/s153C dt.20-3-19 for AY14- 15 would be invalid & assessment made u/s153C would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Saksham Commodities Ltd (2024) (Del HC); Agni Vishnu Ventures (P) Ltd (2024) (Mad HC); Gali Janardhana Reddy (2023) (Kar HC).” IT(SS)A No.84/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2015-16: Original Grounds in Form No. 36: “Gr.No.1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s153C for AY15-16 is invalid; there is consolidated satisfaction note recorded for 6 years i.e., AY11-12 to 16-17 on 15-3-19; in absence of separate satisfaction note recorded for AY15-16, notice u/s153C would be invalid & assessment made u/s153C would also be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) (Kar HC); Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) (SC). Gr.No.2: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, approval granted u/s153D dt.24-12- 19 by Addl.CIT is consolidated approval in 35 cases for 5 assessees on same day; on letter dt.24-12-19 for seeking approval; conditional/ mechanical approval without application of mind based on certification/ declaration given by AO; in absence of any satisfaction recorded by Addl.CIT in approval for AY15-16 for the assessee (i.e., each year, each assessee separately); he has not even mentioned in the approval order u/s153D that he has perused the assessment record; in absence of a valid & proper approval as mandated by law u/s153D, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) (Del HC); Subash Dabas (2024) (Del HC); MDLR Hotels P Ltd (2024) (Del HC); Serajuddin & Co (2023) (Ori HC); Anuj Bansal (2023) (Del HC); Sapna Gupta (2022) (All HC). Gr.No.3: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.85,116, which is unjustified and is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.4: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.7,06,969 on NP estimation of 5% on disclosed sales of Rs.2,43,10,166 of cloth business audited u/s44AB; 5% estimation is without any basis & without giving any comparable cases of other assesses on similar line of cloth business; addition is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.5: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.12,23,800 on unexplained investment (i.e., 20% share in construction cost of 13 shops) made u/s 69C merely based on noting in diary found at third party premises & statement recorded of third party which had retracted later on; without proving copy of such Printed from counselvise.com Shri Narayandas Lalwani IT(SS)A Nos.80 to 86/Ind/2024 AYs:2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 9 of 13 statement recorded & without giving proper opportunity to cross examine the person, addition, merely on presumption & surmises without bringing any corroborative material/ evidence on record, is unsustainable in the eyes of law, is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.6: “The appellant craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.” Additional Grounds by an application under Rule 11: Addl.Gr.No.1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, notice u/s153C dt.20-3-19 for AY15-16 is invalid; there is no mention about any undisclosed income bearing on assessee for AY15- 16 in the ‘satisfaction note’ made by the AO of assessee on 15-3-19; in absence of such finding for AY15-16 in the ‘satisfaction note’ dt.15-3-19; notice u/s153C dt.20-3-19 for AY15- 16 would be invalid & assessment made u/s153C would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Saksham Commodities Ltd (2024) (Del HC); Agni Vishnu Ventures (P) Ltd (2024) (Mad HC); Gali Janardhana Reddy (2023) (Kar HC).” IT(SS)A No.85/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2016-17: Original Grounds in Form No. 36: Gr.No.1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s153C for AY16-17 is invalid; there is consolidated satisfaction note recorded for 6 years i.e., AY11-12 to 16-17 on 15-3-19; in absence of separate satisfaction note recorded for AY16-17, notice u/s153C would be invalid & assessment made u/s153C would also be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) (Kar HC); Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) (SC). Gr.No.2: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, approval granted u/s153D dt.24-12- 19 by Addl.CIT is consolidated approval in 35 cases for 5 assessees on same day; on letter dt.24-12-19 for seeking approval; conditional/ mechanical approval without application of mind based on certification/ declaration given by AO; in absence of any satisfaction recorded by Addl.CIT in approval for AY16-17 for the assessee (i.e., each year, each assessee separately); he has not even mentioned in the approval order u/s153D that he has perused the assessment record; in absence of a valid & proper approval as mandated by law u/s153D, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) (Del HC); Subash Dabas (2024) (Del HC); MDLR Hotels P Ltd (2024) (Del HC); Serajuddin & Co (2023) (Ori HC); Anuj Bansal (2023) (Del HC); Sapna Gupta (2022) (All HC). Gr.No.3: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT (A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.85,153, which is unjustified and is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.4: Printed from counselvise.com Shri Narayandas Lalwani IT(SS)A Nos.80 to 86/Ind/2024 AYs:2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 10 of 13 “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.5,95,770 on NP estimation of 5% on disclosed sales of Rs.2,29,98,048 of cloth business audited u/s44AB; 5% estimation is without any basis & without giving any comparable cases of other assesses on similar line of cloth business; addition is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.5: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.12,23,800 on unexplained investment (i.e., 20% share in construction cost of 13 shops) made u/s69C merely based on noting in diary found at third party premises & statement recorded of third party which had retracted later on; without proving copy of such statement recorded & without giving proper opportunity to cross examine the person, addition, merely on presumption & surmises without bringing any corroborative material/ evidence on record, is unsustainable in the eyes of law, is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.6: “The appellant craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.” Additional Grounds by an application under Rule 11: Addl.Gr.No.1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, notice u/s153C dt.20-3-19 for AY16-17 is invalid; there is no mention about any undisclosed income bearing on assessee for AY16- 17 in the ‘satisfaction note’ made by the AO of assessee on 15-3-19; in absence of such finding for AY16-17 in the ‘satisfaction note’ dt.15-3-19; notice u/s153C dt.20-3-19 for AY16- 17 would be invalid & assessment made u/s153C would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Saksham Commodities Ltd (2024) (Del HC); Agni Vishnu Ventures (P) Ltd (2024) (Mad HC); Gali Janardhana Reddy (2023) (Kar HC).” IT(SS)A No.86/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2017-18: Original Grounds in Form No. 36: Gr.No.1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s144 for AY17-18 is invalid; first proviso to sec153C, date of search shall be date of receiving documents by AO of the assessee; satisfaction note recorded on 15-3-19 shall be considered date of search; AY17-18 would be falling within 6 AYs preceding to the search year i.e., AY19-20; assessment ought to have been made u/s153C for AY17-18 which has not been done; it is complete violation of sec153C(1) rws.153A(1)(b) rws.153B(1)(a) read with first proviso to sec153B(1); assessment made u/s144 is invalid & is liable to be quashed.” Gr.No.2: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, approval granted u/s153D dt.24-12- 19 by Addl.CIT is consolidated approval in 35 cases for 5 assessees on same day; on letter dt.24-12-19 for seeking approval; conditional/ mechanical approval without application of mind based on certification/ declaration given by AO; in absence of any satisfaction recorded Printed from counselvise.com Shri Narayandas Lalwani IT(SS)A Nos.80 to 86/Ind/2024 AYs:2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 11 of 13 by Addl.CIT in approval for AY17-18 for the assessee (i.e., each year, each assessee separately); he has not even mentioned in the approval order u/s153D that he has perused the assessment record; in absence of a valid & proper approval as mandated by law u/s153D, assessment made u/s144 would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) (Del HC); Subash Dabas (2024) (Del HC); MDLR Hotels P Ltd (2024) (Del HC); Serajuddin & Co (2023) (Ori HC); Anuj Bansal (2023) (Del HC); Sapna Gupta (2022) (All HC). Gr.No.3: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT (A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.1,50,000, which is unjustified and is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.4: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.8,15,917 on NP estimation of 5% on disclosed sales of Rs.3,03,01,815 of cloth business audited u/s 44AB; 5% estimation is without any basis & without giving any comparable cases of other assesses on similar line of cloth business; addition is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.5: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.12,23,800 on unexplained investment (i.e., 20% share in construction cost of 13 shops) made u/s69C merely based on noting in diary found at third party premises & statement recorded of third party which had retracted later on; without proving copy of such statement recorded & without giving proper opportunity to cross examine the person, addition, merely on presumption & surmises without bringing any corroborative material/ evidence on record, is unsustainable in the eyes of law, is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.6: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.15,15,718 on unexplained income (i.e., 20% share in long term capital gain on sale of one shop) merely based on noting in diary found at third party premises & statement recorded of third party which had retracted later on; without proving copy of such statement recorded & without giving proper opportunity to cross examine the person, addition, merely on presumption & surmises without bringing any corroborative material/ evidence on record, is unsustainable in the eyes of law, is liable to be deleted.” Gr.No.7: “The appellant craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.” 5. We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and carefully perused the case files. 6. It emerged during hearing that the assessee has remained non- participative in assessment-proceedings before AO as well as in first- Printed from counselvise.com Shri Narayandas Lalwani IT(SS)A Nos.80 to 86/Ind/2024 AYs:2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 12 of 13 appellate proceedings before CIT(A). In Para 1.2 of impugned order, the CIT(A) has noted that the appeals were fixed for hearing on 31.03.2020, 17.06.2020, 31.07.2020, 31.08.2020, 26.10.2020, 01.12.2020, 10.12.2020, 19.07.2021, 25.08.2021, 21.09.2021, 10.12.2021, 15.03.2022, 29.11.2023 and 13.06.2024 but the assessee did not respond to any of the notices. Thus, the CIT(A) afforded as many as 14 hearings out of which first 12 hearings from 31.03.2020 to 15.03.2022 were during Covid-19 period and only last 2 hearings were during normal period. The assessee is having substantial grounds raised either in Form No. 36 or as additional grounds through separate application filed before us, as re-produced in earlier para, challenging the legality of jurisdiction assumed by AO as well as passing of assessment-orders. Having regard to the number of effective hearings fixed by CIT(A); the issues involved; and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to re-store all these matters at the level of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. Needless to mention that the CIT(A) shall afford necessary opportunities to assessee, consider assessee’s all submissions and give a meritorious adjudication, uninfluenced by his earlier order in any manner. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 7. Resultantly, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose. Printed from counselvise.com Shri Narayandas Lalwani IT(SS)A Nos.80 to 86/Ind/2024 AYs:2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 13 of 13 Order pronounced in open court on 22/12/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/ Dated : 22/12/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSSenior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore Printed from counselvise.com "