SANTOSH KUMAR DAGA,RAJNANDGAON V. .DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITSSA 9/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Santosh Kumar Daga, who was subjected to a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at his premises in Rajnandgaon. Following the operation, the AO made several additions to Daga's income for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, based on unaccounted purchases and unexplained cash and stock of maize found during the search. Daga appealed these additions, arguing that the assessments were illegal and not in accordance with the provisions of law, particularly concerning the approval under section 153D for the assessment years in question. The Tribunal's decision addressed the legality of the additions made by the AO and the procedural validity of the assessments under section 153D.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36570 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT Vs. Serajuddin and Co., Pr. CIT Vs. MDLR Hotels P. Ltd. and Ors, Pr. CIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, Pr. CIT Vs. Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Pr. CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Khialdas and Ors Vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: R.B DOSHI; RAKESH
• Keywords: Question of law; Unexplained investment; Cost of acquisition; Document seized; Documents seized; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Procedural lapse
• Section: 148; 143(3); 292BB; 143(2); 132; 153A; 131; 69; 69A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos. 9, 10 & 11/RPR/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Daga C/o. Daga & Brothers, Near Vaishno Mata Mandir Choukhadiya Para, Rajnandgaon-491 441 PAN: ADAPD5084C .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi, CA Revenue by : Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 22.10.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 09.12.2024 2 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Raipur-3, dated 19.06.2024, which in turn arises from the consolidated order passed by the A.O under Sec.153A/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 16.12.2016 for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. As the facts and issues involved in the captioned appeals are common, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off by way of a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(SS)A No.10/RPR/2024 for assessment year 2014-15, wherein the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,70,64,623/- made by AO on account of alleged purchases made by appellant in the name of M/s. Navkar Traders on the basis of certain loose papers found during search. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary and not justified. 2. The assessment order passed by the AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) is illegal, ab initio void inasmuch as the approval given by ld. JCIT u/s.153D is not in accordance with provisions of law. The assessment order is liable to be quashed in absence of valid approval u/s.153D. 3. The appellant reserves the right to amend, modify or add any of the ground/s of appeal.” 3 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 31.03.2015 declaring an income of Rs.4,12,540/-. Search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential- cum-business premises of the assessee at Rajnandgaon on 17.09.2014. Notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 23.09.2016. In compliance, the assessee filed his return of income declaring an income of Rs.6,48,540/-. 4. During the course of search and seizure proceedings conducted at the residential and commercial premises of the assessee, the unaccounted stock of maize i.e. 940 bags of maize (weight: 56400 kg) valued at Rs.6,78,000/- was found which the assessee had admitted as his undisclosed stock in his statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act on 18.09.2024. Also, the assessee vide his statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act, dated 18.09.2024 surrendered the unaccounted cash of Rs.1,25,000/- (out of Rs.2,57,620/- that was found from his residential premises). 5. During the course of search and seizure proceedings at the residential premises of the assessee various documents relating to the trading of agriculture products (mainly purchase bill of maize) in the name of M/s. Navkar Traders were found and seized as LPS-1 and LPS-2. The assessee on being queried, submitted that M/s. Navkar Traders (supra) 4 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 was a proprietary concern of his friend, viz. Shri Rakesh Bothra who due to lack of office space carried out his business activities from the assessee’s residential premises. The assessee based on his aforesaid claim explained the contents of the aforesaid seized document, viz. LPS-1 and LPS-2. The A.O observed that as Shri Rakesh Bothra (supra) who was stated to be the proprietor of M/s. Navkar Traders (supra) had remained untraceable in the course of post search investigation, therefore, his identity could not be established. Also, during the assessment proceedings summons issued by the A.O u/s. 131(1) of the Act to Shri Rakesh Bothra (supra), wherein he was directed to put up a personal appearance were returned unserved by the postal authority with a noting that he had left the address. The A.O considering the aforesaid facts called upon the assessee to produce Shri Rakesh Bothra (supra) but he failed to comply with the aforesaid directions. 6. The A.O taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee had failed to come forth with any explanation as regards the documents (LPS-1 & LPS- 2) that were seized from his premises during the course of search and seizure proceedings held a firm conviction that the same belonged to the assessee and M/s. Navkar Traders (supra) was a dummy concern, in which the business transactions were carried out by the assessee. The A.O to fortify his aforesaid conviction pressed into service the presumption contemplated in Section 292C of the Act. Apart from that, the A.O 5 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 observed that a perusal of Page 26 & 27, which were bills sent by M/s. Mahavir Traders to M/s. Navkar Traders (supra) on 23.12.2012 in lieu of 370 bags of maize delivered to the latter, had a noting wherein the assessee viz. Shri Santosh Daga was requested to acknowledge the receipt of the goods. The A.O based on his aforesaid deliberations concluded that it was the assessee who was handling the business affairs of the benami concern i.e. M/s. Navkar Traders (supra). 7. The A.O based on his aforesaid observation called upon the assessee to put forth an explanation as to why the investment made in the purchase of agricultural products by M/s. Navkar Traders (supra) may not be considered as his unexplained investment. Although the assessee tried to distance himself from the business transactions of M/s. Navkar Traders (supra) but the same did not find favour with the A.O. The assessee submitted before the A.O that he was in receipt of brokerage/commission income qua the business of maize that was carried out by Shri Rakesh Bothra, proprietor of M/s. Navkar Traders. It was claimed by the assessee that he had received brokerage of Rs. 1,80,000/- for F.Y.2013-14 and Rs.18,000 for F.Y.2014-15 that was accounted for in his books of accounts. Referring to the aforesaid claim, the A.O observed that the assessee had at no stage during the search proceedings or during assessment proceedings ever admitted that he was in receipt of 6 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 commission from transactions carried out in the name of M/s. Navkar Traders (supra). 8. Apropos the offer of undisclosed commission income of Rs.1,18,000/- made by the assessee in his return of income for A.Y.2014- 15, the A.O was of the view that the same was nothing but an eye wash to cover the transactions of M/s. Navkar Traders (supra) that was nothing but his benami company. The A.O considering the fact that as the assessee had failed to completely explain the documents of M/s. Navkar Traders (supra) that were seized from his residence, thus inter alia, held its total purchases of Rs.2,70,64,623/- for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2014-15 as the assessee’s unexplained investment. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.12.2016, after making the aforesaid addition determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,77,13,163/-. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). As the assessee despite having been put to notice on six occasions, viz. 29.01.2021, 07.04.2021, 05.01.20222, 28.12.2023, 25.01.2024 and 23.05.2024, had failed to participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) in all fairness proceeded with the appeal vide an ex-parte order. The CIT(Appeals) did not find any infirmity in the view taken by the A.O who in 7 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 absence of any explanation as regards the documents seized from the assessee’s residence pertaining to M/s. Navkar Traders (supra) held the said concern as a benami concern of the assessee and observed as under: “3.2 Ground No.2 :- That the lumpsum ad hock addition of Rs. 2,70,64,623/- on account of purchase cost of maize, which were actually purchase cost of maize, which were actually purchased by Shri Rakesh Bothra, Proprietor of M/s Navkar Traders, carrying on their trading business from assessee premises is not proper and justified. During the search and seizure action at the residential premises of the assessee various documents related to the trading of agriculture products in the name of M/s Navkar Traders was found and seized. The details of transactions appearing on these bunch of loose papers, market as LPS-1 and LPS-2 are tabulated as under. These are mainly purchase bills of Maize. During the course of search proceedings the assessee while explaining these documents stated that his friend Shri Rakesh Bothra is the proprietor of M/s Navkar Traders and the transactions recorded in these documents related to the said firm and due to lack of office space, he performs the business activities from his residential premises. During the assessment proceedings the summons u/s 131(1) of the Act, was issued to the Shri Rakesh Bothra, requesting his personal attendance, but the letter returned with the nothing that the party has left the address. Therefore, to examine the details of transactions of M/s Navkar Traders, the assessee was also requested to produce Shri Rakesh Bothra. However, the assessee could not produce him for examination and verification of the facts. That the assessee has also stated in statement the M/s. Navkar Traders Prop. Rakesh Bothra carries on trading business of Maize from his premise, for which the assessee get brokerage /commission from him to allow his business premise. The assessee has received Rs.1,80,000/-as brokerage for financial year 2013-14 and Rs.18000/- for F.Y. 2014-15 the receipt has duly accounted in books of accounts of assessee. During the assessment proceeding the return of income filed u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y. 2014-15, the assessee has considered receiving of undisclosed income as commission of Rs. 1,80,000/- 8 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 only from Navkar Traders. However, he has failed to disclose income in other A.Y. under consideration. The action on the part of the assessee in this regard is contradictory for the reason that at no point of time either during the search action or during the assessment proceedings he ever admitted that he was receiving commission from the transactions carried in the name of M/s Navkar Traders. The offer of undisclosed income of Rs. 1,80,000/- for the A.Y. 2014-15 is nothing but an eye wash to cover the transactions of M/s Navkar Traders, which was nothing but his own benami concern. The assessee has failed completely to explain the documents seized from his residence pertaining to M/s Navkar Traders. Considering the above, total purchases of Rs. 2,70,64,623/- for the A.Y. 2014-15 are considered to have been made by the assessee only which were not recorded in the books of accounts and therefore added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment in the respective assessment year.\" During the appeal proceeding the appellant company to submitted the reply as under:- During search at the residential premises of appellant, documents relating to trading of agricultural products in the name of M/s Navkar Traders were found, inventoried vide LPS 1 & 2. These loose papers, mainly purchase bills, contained transaction of purchase of maize. The appellant explained that the transactions in the loose papers related to one shri Rakesh Bothra who was proprietor of M/s Navkar Traders, who was operating his business from the premises of appellant. During post search investigation by the Investigation wing, said Shri Rakesh Bothra remained untraceable. During assessment proceedings, summons was issued to Shri Rakesh Bothra which returned un-served and that the appellant also could not produce him for examination. During search, LPs found vide sr. no. 26 & 27 contain a note to the effect that the appellant was requested by the acknowledge receipt of 370 bags of maize sent to M/s Navkar Traders. On the basis of above observation the Ld. AO concluded that M/s Navkar Traders is a benami concern of appellant and the appellant has made unrecorded purchases which the Ld. AO added as unexplained investment. In this regard, it is submitted that:- Addition has been made only on the basis of documents found during search. During search, vide answer to question no.8 of the statement dt. 18.09.2014, when the appellant was interrogated about the impugned loose papers, he stated that the loose papers pertained to the business carried on by his friend Shri Rakesh Bothra under the proprietorship firm name M/s Navkar Traders 9 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 and that Shri Bothra was operating his business from the premises of appellant. A copy of the statement is enclosed and the relevant question and answer has been scanned on page no. 15 of assessment order, please note that on page 14 para 8.1 of the assessment order, the Ld. AO. Has also noted that during search it was explained by the appellant the Shri Rakesh Bothra was the proprietor of M/s Navkar Traders and that the transactions recorded in the impugned documents related to the said concern. Expect for the loose papers found during search, which were not in the name of appellant but in the name of M/s Navkar Traders, no other corroborative material/evidence was found during search to link the appellant with M/s Navkar Traders. It the business of M/s Navkar Traders was owned by the appellant other evidences like books of account, bank account, cheque book and other correspondence, details of debtors/creditors etc. would also have been found during the search from the premises of appellant. The very fact that such corroborative material/evidence was not found during search is a circumstantial evidence to proved that the concern M/s Navkar Traders does not belong to the appellant. It is submitted that bank account in the name of M/s Navkar Traders was maintained with Stat Bank of India , Rajnandgaon and as per the bank records, Shri Rakesh Bothra was the proprietor of this concern. We are enclosing herewith a copy of the certificate issued by State Bank of India, dated 21.04.2018 certifying the above facts which has been provided to appellant by Shri Rakesh Bothra. However, following facts, which differ from A.Y. 2014-15, may kindly be considered. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has furnished documentary evidence. The documentary evidence kept on record. On examination of all these documents, the assessee has also stated in statement the M/s Navkar Traders Prop. Rakesh Bothra carries on trading business of Maize from his premise, for which the assessee get brokerage/commission from him to allow his business premise. The assessee has received Rs.1,80,000/- as brokerage for financial year 2013-14 and Rs.18000/- for F.Y. 2014- 15 the receipt has duly accounted in books of accounts of assessee. During the assessment proceeding the return of income filed u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y. 2014-15, the assessee has considered receiving of undisclosed income as commission of Rs.1,80,000/- only from Navkar Traders. However, he has failed to disclose income in other A.Y. under consideration. 10 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 The action on the part of the assessee in this regard is contradictory for the reason that at no point of time either during the search action or during the assessment proceedings he ever admitted that he was receiving commission from the transactions carried in the name of M/s. Navkar Traders. The offer of undisclosed income of Rs.1,80,000/- for the A.Y. 2014-15 is nothing but an eye wash to cover the transactions of M/s Navkar Traders, which was nothing but his own benami concern. The assessee has failed completely to explain the documents seized from his residence pertaining to M/s Navkar Traders. I have perused the assessment order and finding of the Ld. A.O. I find that the Ld. AO justified the making demand of Rs. Rs.2,70,64,623/-, is hereby confirmed. Therefore, appeal on these grounds is dismissed. 1. In the result, appeals are Dismissed.” 10. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 11. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 12. Shri R.B Doshi, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee at the threshold submitted that as M/s. Navkar Traders (supra) was a proprietary concern of shri Rakesh Bothra, assessee’s friend, who had carried out his business from the assessee’s premises, therefore, there was no justification for the lower authorities to have held the business transactions of the said concern as that of the assessee. The Ld. AR in 11 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 order to buttress his aforesaid claim had drawn our attention to the statement of the assessee that was recorded in the course of search proceedings u/s. 132(4) of the Act on 18.09.2014, Page 24 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee on being queried about the bill book of M/s. Navkar Traders had stated that the same belonged to his friend Shri Rakesh Bothra (supra) who was carrying on the business activities of the said concern from his business premises. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was only engaged in the business of commission agent of agricultural products. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to the reply that was filed by the assessee to Question No.14 of the aforesaid statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act, dated 18.09.2014. The Ld. AR to buttress his claim that M/s. Navkar Traders was a proprietary concern of Shri Rakesh Bothra (supra) had drawn support from the “Certificate” issued by the State Bank of India, wherein it was stated that the Current Account No.32766861632 of the aforementioned concern was maintained by its proprietor Shri Rakesh Kumar Bothra, Page 30 of APB. The Ld. AR further submitted that Shri Rakesh Kumar Bothra had filed an “affidavit” dated 28.04.2018, wherein he had admitted that M/s. Navkar Traders was his proprietary concern and the purchase transaction of Rs.2,70,64,623/- relates to him, Page 31-32 of APB. The Ld. AR also pressed into service the return of income of Shri Rakesh Kumar Bothra for A.Y.2014-15 and had specifically taken us through the profit that was disclosed by him in his 12 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 computation of income filed along with his return of income for the said year, Page 33-34 of APB. Also, the Ld. AR had drawn support from the certificate issued by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samity, Rajnandgaon, Page 35 of APB. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that M/s, Navkar Traders (supra) was registered with the Commercial Tax Department, Page 36 of APB. The Ld. AR based on his aforesaid contentions submitted that now when it was established that Shri Rakesh Bothra (supra) was the proprietor of the concern, viz. M/s. Navkar Traders, therefore, there was no justification for the lower authorities for drawing adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee regarding the bunch of loose papers i.e. LPS-1 and LPS-2 pertaining to the said concern which were found in the course of search and seizure proceedings from his premises. 13. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 14. As is discernible from the record, the assessee is engaged in the business of commission agent of agricultural products (mainly maize). Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from records that certain bunch of loose papers, viz. LPS-1 and LPS-2 were found and seized in the course of search proceedings from the residential premises of the assessee. As observed by us hereinabove, the aforesaid seized documents pertain to trading of agricultural products in the name of M/s. Navkar Traders 13 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 (supra). As the aforesaid documents were found and seized in the course of search and seizure proceedings conducted u/s. 132 of the Act at the residential premises of the assessee, therefore, as observed by the A.O, and rightly so, the presumption as per Section 292C of the Act was that, viz. (i) that the documents seized belongs to the assessee; and (ii) that the contents of the said documents were true. Although, the presumption contemplated u/s. 292C of the Act is rebuttable but we find that the assessee had failed to lead any such evidence which would dislodge the view taken by the A.O. We find that the assessee except for harping on his claim that M/s. Navkar Traders (supra) was a proprietary concern of Shri Rakesh Bothra (his friend), who was carrying on his business activities from his premises but had pathetically failed to place on record any material which would substantiate the said claim. On the contrary, we find that not only the summon issued by the A.O u/s. 131 of the Act to Shri Rakesh Bothra (supra) seeking his personal attendance were returned unserved, but also the assessee despite specific direction by the A.O to produce the said person, had failed to do the needful in the course of the assessment proceedings. 15. Although, the Ld. AR had tried to impress upon us that the assessee in his statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act, dated 18.09.2014 had stated in reply to Question No.23 that the seized bill books, viz. LPS-1 and LPS-2 pertained to M/s. Navkar Traders, a proprietary concern of Shri 14 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 Rakesh Kumar Bothra who was carrying on his business activities from the premises of the assessee, we are afraid that the said standalone statement would not carry the case of the assessee any further. As regards the certificate issued by the State Bank of India, Branch: Rajnandgaon dated 21.04.2018, wherein it is stated that the Current Account No. 32766861632 of M/s. Navkar Traders was being maintained by Shri Rakesh Bothra (proprietor), we are afraid that the same would by no means dislodge the view taken by the A.O that M/s. Navkar Traders was a benami concern run by the assessee in the name of Shri Rakesh Kumar Bothra. Also, we are unable to fathom that as to why the “affidavit” of Shri Rakesh Kumar Bothra (supra), dated 28.04.2018, wherein he is stated to have claimed that M/s. Navkar Traders was his proprietary concern and the purchase transaction mentioned in the seized documents amounting to Rs.2,70,64,623/- pertained to him was filed earlier and was brought on record for the first time after a lapse of a period more than four years from the date on which search and seizure proceedings were conducted. As regards the support drawn by the Ld. AR on the copy of return of income of Shri Rakesh Kumar Bothra for A.Y.2014-15, we find that nothing has been placed on record which would reveal that the profit income disclosed by the said person was derived from the business transactions of M/s. Navkar Traders. We say so, specifically for the reason that though the assessee had placed on record a copy of the acknowledgement of return of 15 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 income filed by him for A.Y.2014-15 a/w. computation of income but had withheld the filing of the copy of the “profit and loss account”. Also, the registration of M/s. Navkar Traders with the Commercial Tax Department and the office of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samity, Rajnandgaon does not in any way dislodge the view taken by the A.O that the assessee from whose premises the documents referring to the business transactions in the name of the aforesaid concern were found and seized was not actually the owner of the said benami concern. 16. As regards the claim of the assessee that he was in receipt of commission income on the business transactions of M/s. Navkar Traders (supra), we concur with the A.O that the said claim is nothing but a mere eye wash. As observed by the lower authorities, and rightly so, the assessee had neither in the course of the search and seizure proceedings nor during assessment proceedings ever admitted that he was in receipt of commission income from the business transactions in the name of M/s. Navkar Traders. Apart from that, as rightly observed by the A.O, the fact that the assessee had disclosed commission income only during the A.Y.2014-15 in itself contradicts his aforesaid claim. 17. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations finding no infirmity in the view taken by the lower authorities. who had rightly held that as per the mandate of Section 292C of the Act and other circumstantial evidence, 16 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 M/s. Navkar Traders was a benami concern of the assessee, uphold the same. Thus, the Grounds of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 18. We shall now deal with the claim raised by the Ld. AR that as the approval given by the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur u/s. 153D of the Act is not in accordance with the law, thus, the consequential assessment framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.12.2016 being illegal and void ab-initio is liable to be quashed. 19. Shri R.B. Doshi, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that a perusal of the approval letter dated 16.12.2016 of the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur revealed that no such approval for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2014-15 had been granted by him. The Ld. AR to buttress his aforesaid claim had taken us through the aforesaid approval letter, dated 16.12.2016 of the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur. The Ld. AR submitted that as the Jt. CIT had vide his letter dated 16.12.2016 granted the approval in the case of the present assessee for A.Y.2007-08 to A.Y.2013- 14, therefore, in absence of any such approval for A.Y.2014-15, the assessment framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.12.2016 cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction. 17 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 20. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘CIT-DR’) had placed on record a letter dated 21.10.2024 of the ACIT, (Central-2), Raipur a/w. a copy of the letter dated 13.12.2016 that was issued by his predecessor to the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur, inter alia, seeking the latter’s approval u/s. 153D of the Act in the case of the assessee for A.Y.2009-10 to A.Y.2015-16. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that though the ACIT, Circle-2, vide his letter dated 13.12.2016 (supra) had sought approval of the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur u/s.153D of the Act for A.Ys. 2009-10 to A.Y.2015-16, but erroneously the said approving authority vide his letter dated 16.12.2016, had on account of a typographical mistake mentioned A.Y. 2007-08 to A.Y.2013-14. The Ld. CIT-DR drawing support from the aforesaid letter dated 21.10.2024 r.w. dated 13.21.2016 of the ACIT, Circle-2, Raipur, submitted that as the mistake in mentioning of the years, for which, the approval u/s. 153D of the Act was granted by the Jt. CIT had crept in his aforesaid approval letter due to a clerical error which could be corrected u/s. 292B of the Act, therefore, the Ld. AR’s contention that there was no approval granted by the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur being devoid and bereft of any merit was liable to be rejected. 21. Before proceeding any further, we deem it fit to cull out the provision of Section 153D of the Act, which reads as under: 18 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 “153D. No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA.\" As per the mandate of the aforesaid statutory provision, the A.O below the rank of Joint Commissioner is duty bound not to pass any order of assessment or reassessment for assessment years referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A; or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. At the same time, an exception to the application of the aforesaid statutory provision is carved out by way of a “proviso”, as per which, the same would not apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the A.O with a prior approval of the Commissioner under sub section (12) of Section 144BA of the Act. 22. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the aforesaid issue, i.e. sustainability of the assessment order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.12.2016 by the ACIT, Central-2, 19 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 Raipur in the backdrop of the approval granted by the Jt. CIT, Range- Central, Raipur vide his letter dated 16.12.2016. Section 153D that provides for a prior approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for assessment in case of search or requisition, had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2007, w.e.f. 01.06.2007. As per the “Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2007”, it transpires that prior to the insertion of Section 153D of the Act no approval for assessment was required in a case where search had been conducted u/s. 132 of the Act; or requisition had been made u/s.132A of the Act. Accordingly, the legislature in all its wisdom had by making available the aforesaid statutory provision w.e.f. 01.06.2007 had vested with the Jt. CIT supervisory check over the order of assessment or reassessment passed pursuant to search operation. 23. The Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of ACIT Vs. Serajuddin and Co. (2023) 454 ITR 312 (Orissa), after deliberating at length on the aforesaid issue, had observed that the obligation cast upon the A.O to obtain a prior approval of the Jt. CIT before passing an order of assessment or reassessment under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153B of the Act cannot be held as a mechanical exercise. The Hon’ble Court had observed that though elaborate reasons need not be given, there has to be some indication that the approving authority had examined the draft order and 20 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 finds that it meets the requirement of the law. After pressing into service the “Technical Manual of Office Procedure”, it was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that there are three or four requirements that are mandated, viz., (i) the AO should submit the draft assessment order \"well in time\"; (ii) the final approval must be in writing; and (iii) the fact that approval has been obtained, should be mentioned in the body of the assessment order. The Hon’ble High Court had observed that the aforesaid guidelines/instructions issued by the CBDT were binding on the department. It was further observed that the requirement of the prior approval of the superior officer before an order of assessment or reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Hon’ble High Court, further observed, that as in the case before them, the approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Addl. CIT, thus, the assessment order therein passed stood vitiated. The Hon’ble High Court while concluding as hereinabove, had fortified its view that seeking approval of the superior officer as per the mandate of law cannot be a mechanical exercise, had relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Vs. DY. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 (SC) and Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC). 21 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 24. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. MDLR Hotels P. Ltd. and Ors, ITA No.635/2023 dated 30.07.2024, had while approving the view taken by the Tribunal, observed that as per Section 153D of the Act, the superior authorities while granting approval should apply their minds on the material on the basis of which the officer is making the assessment, and thus, only after due application of mind and on the basis of seized materials approve the assessment order. The Hon’ble High Court after relying on its order in the case of Pr. CIT-7 Vs. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. (2024 SCC OnLine Del 1685), had observed that an approval having been granted mechanically and without due application of mind u/s. 153D of the Act by the Jt. CIT would be not as per the mandate of law. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar 163 taxmann.com 9, had observed that an approval mechanically granted by the Addl. CIT u/s. 153D of the Act without independent application of mind was rightly declared to be illegal by the Tribunal. 25. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Siddarth Gupta (2003) 450 ITR 534 (All) had again endorsed the view that a mechanical exercise of power by the approving authority would not satisfy the statutory obligation that was cast upon the Jt. CIT u/s. 153D of the Act. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Courts in the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, had observed that an approval granted by the 22 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 Jt.CIT u/s.153D of the Act in a mechanical manner and without independent application of mind would not satisfy the statutory obligation that was cast upon him under the said provision. 26. We shall now in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law delve into the facts involved in the present case qua the approval granted by the Jt. CIT, Range- Central, Raipur u/s.153D of the Act vide his letter dated 16.12.2016. For the sake of clarity, the letter dated 16.12.2016 (supra) of the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur is culled out as under: 23 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the Jt. CIT, Range- Central, Raipur had in the case of the present assessee, viz. Shri Santosh Kumar Daga had granted his approval u/s. 153D of the Act for A.Y.2007-8 to A.Y.2013-14. The Ld. AR states that as the A.O had framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.12.2016 for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y.2014-15 without obtaining an approval of the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur u/s. 153D of the Act, therefore, the said assessment is liable to be struck down for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction. 27. On the contrary, the Ld.CIT-DR claims that though the A.O vide his letter dated 13.12.2016 had forwarded the draft assessment orders passed in the case of the assessee, viz. Shri Santosh Kumar Daga for the subject years, i.e. A.Y.2009-10 to A.Y.2015-16 (i.e. including the year under consideration) and sought approval of the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur, but the latter while granting the approval vide his letter dated 16.12.2016 (supra) had inadvertently made a reference of A.Y.2007-08 to A.Y.2013-14. As observed by us hereinabove, it is the claim of the department that as the mistake regarding mentioning of the wrong assessment years, for which, the approval had been granted by the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur, had crept in due to a clerical mistake, therefore, the same as per the mandate of Section 292B of the Act would not render the approval validly granted for the year under consideration as invalid. 24 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 28. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur had vide his letter dated 16.12.2016 not granted any approval u/s. 153D of the Act for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y.2014-15. At the same time, we cannot remain oblivion of the fact that the A.O, i.e. ACIT, Central-2, Raipur vide his letter dated 13.12.2016 had forwarded the draft assessment orders to the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur in the case of the present assessee for A.Y.2009-10 to A.Y.2015-16. 29. We shall now deal with the double facet contentions of the Ld. Authorized Representative, based on which, he has assailed the validity of the order passed by the A.O u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.12.2016, viz. (i) that in absence of any approval having been granted in the case of the assessee by the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y.2014-15, the assessment framed by the A.O u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.12.2016 cannot be sustained ; and (ii) alternatively, the approval had been granted by the Jt. CIT, Range- Central, Raipur u/s. 153D of the Act vide his letter dated 16.12.2016 in a mechanical manner without any application of mind. 30. Admittedly, in the letter of the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur dated 16.12.2016, there is no whisper of granting of approval u/s. 153D of the Act in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2014-15. As it is the Ld. DR’s/A.O’s claim that the mistake in 25 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 mentioning the incorrect years i.e. A.Y.2007-08 to A.Y.2013-14 by the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur while granting approval u/s. 153D of the Act, vide his letter dated 16.12.2016 is a mistake/omission curable u/s.292B of the Act, therefore, the same will not have any bearing on the validity of the assessment framed by the A.O, therefore, we deem it fit to cull out the provisions of Section 292B of the Act, which reads as under: “292B. No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act.” As per section 292B of the Act, any mistake, defect or omission in the return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, as long as such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act, would either render the same as invalid’ or deemed to be invalid. We are of the view that though Section 292B of the Act would take within its scope and gamut the mistake, defect or omission but the same cannot be stretched to an extent of correcting the foundational requirement to acquire jurisdiction in a case. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sumit Balkrishna Gupta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of 26 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 Income Tax & Ors, (2019) 414 ITR 292 (Bom.). The Hon’ble High Court in its order had observed that Section 292B of the Act cannot be invoked to correct foundational/substantial error as it is meant to as to meet the jurisdictional requirements. In the case before the Hon’ble High Court notice u/s. 148 of the Act which was sine-qua-non for valid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O to reopen the assessment was issued in the name of a dead person. The Hon’ble High Court had observed that as the aforesaid lapse on the part of the A.O could not be brought within the meaning of a procedural requirement, as the same was condition precedent to the notice being valid in law, therefore, the same was not protected by the provisions of Section 292B or 292BB of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the observation of the Hon’ble High Court is culled out as under: “…Thus, a notice which has been issued in the name of the dead person is also not protected either by provisions of Section 292B or 292BB of the Act. This is so as the requirement of issuing a notice in the name of correct person is the foundational requirement to acquire jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. This is evident from Section 148 of the Act, which requires that before a proceeding can be taken up for reassessment, a notice must be served upon the assessee. The assessee on whom the notice must be sent must be a living person i.e legal heir of the deceased assessee, for the same to be responded. This in fact is the intent and purpose of the Act. Therefore, Section 292B of the Act cannot be invoked to correct a foundational/substantial error as it is meant so as to meet the jurisdictional requirement.” 27 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 31. Also, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Khialdas and Ors Vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 960 (MP), had observed, that as per Section 292B of the Act, if any minor defect is there which does not militate against the intent and purpose of the Act, then such minor defect can be cured. In the case before the Hon’ble High Court, the assessee firm had filed its return of income which was not signed by any of the partners in the manner required u/s. 140 of the Act. The A.O held the return filed by the assessee firm as invalid. The Hon’ble High Court had concluded that though if a minor defect is there which does not militate against the intent and purpose of the Act, then such minor defect can be cured u/s. 292B of the Act, but failure on the part of the assessee to sign and verify the return of income as per provisions of Section 140 of the Act would render the return of income so filed as invalid. For the sake of clarity, the observation of the Hon’ble High Court is culled out as under: “…..The idea is that if any minor defect is there which does not militate against the intent and purpose of the Act, then such minor defect can be cured but according to Section 140 which is mandatory, every return has to be signed and verified. Section 140 says ' that a return under Section 139 shall be signed and verified. The word \"shall\" has been used which shows that it is mandatory that every return should be signed and verified and if it is not signed and verified, then it is in breach of the provisions of Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, this cannot be a defect which can be cured and any return which has been filed without signature and verification of the assessee, will not be treated as a valid return. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is justified.” 28 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 32. We find that the indulgence of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors Vs. Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 272 (Kar.), was sought for, inter alia, adjudicating the following question of law: “(2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of section 292B of the Act will not make the assessment valid as a defect/omission to incorporate the name of M/s. Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd., in the assessment order as the same is not in substance and effect in confirmative with or according to the intend and purpose of this Act?” The Hon’ble High Court taking cognizance of the fact that in the case before them, the company viz. M/s. Software and Silicon Systems India Pvt. Ltd. had merged with M/s. Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd. vide an order of amalgamation passed by the High Court on May, 28, 2004 which was effective from April 1, 2004. The amalgamating company, viz. M/s. Software and Silicon Systems India Pvt. Ltd. had filed its return of income for A.Y.2003-04 on November, 28,2003. The assessee company had intimated about the said fact of amalgamation to the department on June 29, 2004. The A.O issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, on October, 14, 2004 to M/s. Software and Silicon Systems India Pvt. Ltd. and framed the assessment in its case vide order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 27.03.2006. 33. On appeal, the Tribunal quashed the assessment with an observation that the assessment proceedings carried out by the A.O against M/s. Software and Silicon Systems India Pvt. Ltd. (which was non 29 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 existent on the date of passing of the assessment order) could not be held to be valid proceedings. 34. On further appeal, it was the Revenue’s claim that as per Section 292B of the Act, the defect/omission on the part of the A.O to incorporate the name of M/s. Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd. i.e. amalgamated company, in the assessment order would not render the assessment order which was in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act as invalid. However, the aforesaid claim of the department was rejected by the Hon’ble High Court which had approved the view taken by the Tribunal. The Hon’ble High Court while dismissing the appeal of the revenue, had observed, that as framing of the assessment of a non-existent entity/person did go to the roots of the matter and was not a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect, therefore, the same would not be saved by the provisions of Section 292B of the Act. 35. Also, we find that involving identical facts as were there before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors Vs. Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC), had held that the issuance of a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act by the A.O to a non-existent amalgamating company 30 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 being a substantive irregularity could not be saved by the provisions of Section 292B of the Act. 36. We have thoughtfully considered the facts involved in the present case before us in the backdrop of the settled position of law as had been laid down by the Hon’ble Courts. As the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur in the present case before us, had vide his letter dated 16.12.2016 (supra), admittedly not granted any approval in the case of the present assessee viz. Shri Santosh Kumar Daga (supra) for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y.2014-15, therefore, the same in our view is substantive irregularity and not a procedural violation as per section 292B of the Act. As the assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O for framing the assessment vide his order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.12.2016 presupposes the prior approval of the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur which as observed by us hereinabove, had not been granted, therefore, as stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, the assessment order so passed is liable to be quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction. 37. At this stage, we may herein observe that the claim of the Ld. AR/AO that mentioning of a wrong assessment year by the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur in his letter dated 16.12.2016 is in the nature of a mistake/omission that would be protected by Section 292B of the Act, would also fail for the reason that neither the said incorrect mentioning of 31 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 the assessment year was got corrected by the A.O before passing of the assessment order nor any attempt to the said effect was ever made by him. Accordingly, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that as the impugned assessment framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 153(3) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.12.2016 had been passed in absence of any approval u/s. 153D of the Act for the year under consideration, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed on the said count itself. 38. Alternatively, we may herein observe, that even if the contention of the Ld. DR was to be accepted, i.e. the Jt. CIT had vide his letter dated 16.12.2016 had granted the approval u/s. 153D of the Act for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y.2014-15, the incorrect mentioning of the assessment year(s) by the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur in his approval letter dated 16.12.2016 beyond any doubts reveals granting of approval by him in a mechanical manner and without any application of mind. As had been deliberated at length by us hereinabove, the Hon’ble High Courts had held that granting of an approval u/s. 153D of the Act by the Jt.CIT in a mechanical manner and without any application of mind would not satisfy the mandate contemplated under the said statutory provision. Accordingly, the impugned approval granted by the Jt. CIT u/s.153D for the subject year, thus on the said count itself i.e. non-application of mind by the said approving authority cannot be approved on our part. 32 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 39. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observation quash the assessment framed by the A.O u/s.153(3) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.12.2016 for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 40. Ground of appeal No.3 being general in nature is dismissed as not pressed. 41. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in IT(SS)A No.10/RPR/2024 for A.Y.2014-15 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. IT(SS)A No.09/RPR/2024 A.Y.2013-14 42. As the facts involved in the captioned appeal filed by the assessee as regards the Ground of appeal No.1 i.e. qua the merits of the addition made by the A.O. remains the same as were there before us in the aforementioned IT(SS)A No.10/RPR/2024 for assessment year 2014-15, therefore, our order therein passed while disposing the said appeal shall apply mutatis-mutandis for disposing off the captioned appeal, i.e., IT(SS)A No. 09/RPR/2024 for A.Y. 2013-14. In this case also, we uphold the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) on similar lines as were recorded by us in IT(SS)A No.10/RPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14. Thus, the Ground of appeal 33 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 43. Apropos the Ld.AR’s contention that the assessment framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.12.2016 was illegal and void ab-initio for the reason that the Jt. CIT had failed to give his approval u/s.153D of the Act in accordance with the provision of law, we are unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the same. On a perusal of the record, we find that the A.O, i.e. ACIT, Circle-2, Raipur vide his letter dated 13.12.2016 had, inter alia, forwarded the draft assessment order in the case of the assessee, viz. Shri Santosh Kumar Daga (supra) for A.Y.2009-10 to A.Y.2015-16 to Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur for his approval u/s. 153D of the Act (copy placed on record). The aforesaid letter of the ACIT, Circle-2, Raipur was received by the office of the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur on the same date, i.e. 13.12.2016. Further, we find that the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur vide his letter dated 16.12.2016 marked as F. No.Jt.CIT(C)/RPR/153D/2016-17/361 had, inter alia, granted his approval qua the draft assessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 153A of the Act in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y.2013-14. The aforesaid letter of the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur dated 16.12.2016 granting approval u/s. 153D of the Act was received by the office of the ACIT, Circle-2, Raipur on the same date. For the sake of clarity, the approval granted u/s. 153D of the 34 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 Act by the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur dated 16.12.2016 is culled out as under: 44. As the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur had, inter alia, vide his letter dated 16.12.2016 granted his approval u/s. 153D of the Act, therefore, in 35 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 our considered view the mandate of Section 153D of the Act stood duly complied with. At this stage, we may herein observe that the assessee had failed to place on record any material which would irrefutably substantiate his claim that there was no application of mind by the Jt. CIT, Range- Central, Raipur while granting the approval. Our aforesaid view that now when approval for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y.2013-14had been granted by the Jt. CIT u/s. 153D of the Act, vide his letter dated 16.12.2016, then the obligation that was cast upon him under the aforesaid statutory provision stood duly complied with is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Hitesh Golecha Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur, TAXC No.76/2024, dated 10.04.2024. The Hon’ble High Court in its aforesaid order after deliberating upon the similarly worded approval granted by the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur, had observed that as the A.O in the case before them had obtained a prior approval of the Jt. CIT, therefore, the mandate of Section 153D of the Act was duly complied with. After referring to the similarly worded approval of the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, the Hon’ble High Court, had observed, that the Jt. CIT after being satisfied with the documents on record had justifiably approved the draft assessment order. It was further observed by the Hon’ble High Court that in a given case, it cannot be presumed on the mere say of the assessee that no application of mind was there while granting the approval. The Hon’ble High Court had 36 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 further observed that the language used in the letter granting the approval revealed the subjective satisfaction that was arrived at based on the documents that were produced before the Jt. CIT. It was further observed that on a perusal of the language of the approval letter, it cannot be presumed that there was no application of mind as the approval need not be a detailed assessment order. The Hon’ble High Court after pressing into service Section 114 of the Evidence Act, had further observed that in case where the official act had been done in accordance with official procedure, then it would lead to a presumption that due diligence was followed. 45. As the facts involved in the present case remains the same as were there before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hitesh Golecha Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur (supra), wherein the Hon’ble High Court had looked into a similarly worded approval granted by the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur, and had rejected the assessee’s claim that the said approval was granted without application of mind by the latter, therefore, we respectfully follow the same. 46. Accordingly, as the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur vide his letter dated 16.12.2016 marked as F.No.Jt.CIT(C)/RPR/153D/2016-17/361 (copy placed on record) had, inter alia, granted the approval in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y.2013-14, therefore, in terms of our aforesaid observations, we find no merit in the contentions 37 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 advanced by the Ld. AR, and reject the same. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 47. Ground of appeal No.3 being general in nature is dismissed as not pressed. 48. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No.09/RPR/2024 for A.Y.2013-14 is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. IT(SS)A No.11/RPR/2024 A.Y.2015-16 49. We shall now take up the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(SS)A No.11/RPR/2024 for A.Y.2015-16 wherein the impugned order has been assailed, on the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,32,620/- made by AO on account of alleged excess cash found during search treating it to be unexplained money u/s.69A. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary and not justified. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,80,000/- made by AO on account of stock of maize found during search treating it to be unexplained investment invoking sec. 69. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary and not justified. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.7,35,500/- made by AO on account of alleged purchases made by appellant in the name of M/s.Navkar Traders on the basis of certain loose papers found during search. The addition made by the A.O and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary and not justified. 38 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 4.The assessment order passed by the AO and confirmed by Id. CIT(A) is illegal, ab initio void inasmuch as the approval given by ld. JCIT u/s.153D is not in accordance with provisions of law. The assessment order is liable to be quashed in absence of valid approval u/s.153D. 5. The appellant reserves the right to amend, modify or add any of the ground/s of appeal.” 50. Succinctly stated, the search and seizure proceedings were conducted u/s. 132 of the Act at the residential premises of the assessee at Rajnandgaon on 17.09.2014. Assessment in the case of the assessee for A.Y.2015-16 was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 16.12.2016, wherein his income was determined at Rs.24,22,850/- after, inter alia, making the following additions/disallowances: 51. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Addition u/s. 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money found in the course of search proceedings 1,32,620/- 2. Addition u/s. 69 of the Act on account of stock of maize (250 sacks) Rs.1,80,000/- 3. Addition on account of unexplained investment made by the assessee qua the unrecorded purchases Rs.7,35,500/- 39 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 52. As the facts involved in the captioned appeal filed by the assessee as regards the merits i.e. (Grounds of appeal No.1, 2 & 3) remains the same as were there before us in the aforementioned IT(SS)A No.10/RPR/2024 for assessment year 2014-15 vide Ground of appeal No.1, therefore, our order therein passed while disposing off the said issue shall apply mutatis- mutandis for disposing off the captioned appeal, i.e., IT(SS)A No.11/RPR/2024 for A.Y. 2015-16. Thus, the Grounds of appeal No.1, 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 53. As the facts involved in the captioned appeal filed by the assessee as regards the legal issue i.e. the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for framing the impugned assessment (Ground of appeal No.4) remains the same as were there before us in the aforementioned IT(SS)A No.10/RPR/2024 for assessment year 2014-15 vide Ground of appeal No.2, therefore, our order therein passed while disposing off the said issue shall apply mutatis-mutandis for disposing off the captioned appeal, i.e., IT(SS)A No.11/RPR/2024 for A.Y. 2015-16. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 54. Ground of appeal No.3 being general in nature is dismissed as not pressed. 40 Santosh Kumar Daga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 9 to 11/RPR/2024 55. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in IT(SS)A No.11/RPR/2024 for A.Y.2015-16 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 56. Resultantly, all the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 09th day of December, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 09th December, 2024. **#SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "