O R D E R

PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

1. These three appeals filed by assessee are against order dated 13.12.2022 (for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) and dated 29.11.2022 (for A.Y. 2015-16) of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] arising out of assessment order dated 28.12.2018 of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘Ld. AO’) under section 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”].

2. All the three captioned appeals involve similar facts and issues. For facility of convenience, all three appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

3. We shall first take up the A.Y. 2013-14 for adjudication purposes.

ITA No. 1358/Del/2023 for A.Y. 2013-14 :

4. Brief facts leading to this case are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 23.07.2015 and subsequent dates in different business and residential premises of “Shri Deepak Agarwal, Shri Mukesh Kumar and others” group of cases, based at Delhi, allegedly entry operators providing accommodation entries to beneficiaries. As per Assessing Officer, during the course of search and seizure operation many incriminating papers/documents, related to the assessee company were found and seized. After recording satisfaction, notice under section 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued. It is noteworthy that in response to notice under section 153C of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income at a loss of Rs.4,790/-. The Authorized Representative of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings. On completion of assessment proceedings, additions of Rs.50,02,578/-, Rs.12,50,645/-, Rs.5,71,370/- and Rs.8,99,671/- (total assessed income Rs.77,19,504/-) were made by the learned Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.12.2018.

5. Being aggrieved assessee/appellant preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) which was partly allowed by the order dated

13.12.2022.

6. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal with the following grounds :

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that approach adopted by revenue is inconsistent and, contradictory.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that addition tantamounts to double taxation and is therefore not permissible.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,71,370/- is factually and legally misconceived.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the protective addition of Rs. 8,99,671/- in the hands of Sh. Mukesh Kumar is without jurisdiction as no cross examination of such amount or any document was done with Sh. Mukesh Kumar and the relevant document was not recovered from the possession of Sh. Mukesh Kumar.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the lack of enquiry by the learned assessing officer.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures.

7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the any document found from third party premises in absence of any corroborative evidence cannot be relied upon to draw any adverse inference against the appellant.

8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that in absence of section 65B of evidence act, the documents in electronic form recovered from third party premises cannot be made a foundation of invoking section 153C of the act.

9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that computation made is otherwise too arbitrary and wholly untenable.

10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that addition cannot be made merely on the basis of statement of third party recorded behind the back of assessee without providing an opportunity to cross examine suc