The validity of invoking Section 153C of the Income Tax Act hinges on the presence of incriminating material pertaining to the assessed individual, which was absent in this case.

O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Chennai-20, all dated 29.06.2024 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2014-15 to 2018-19. As the issues involved across all these appeals were common, they were heard together. Both the parties also argued them together raising identical arguments on the issues impugned in all these appeals. Hence, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we are disposing all the appeals by this consolidated order.

2. Before we advert to the grounds raised before us, it would first be relevant to cull out the basic facts of the case in respect of all the AYs before us. Search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was conducted against M/s KLP Projects Pvt Ltd on 09.11.2017 and on the same date the premises of M/s Binny Ltd was also covered. During the course of search, the books of accounts maintained by the company, M/s Binny Ltd., in their tally server was seized. It was inter alia gathered during the course of search that, M/s Binny Limited had received an amount of Rs.490 crores from M/s KLP Projects Pvt. Ltd. towards sale of its land at Perambur, Chennai pursuant to an agreement for sale was signed on 17.10.2013. Out of the said amount, sum of Rs.370 crores was received through banking channel during the period FY 2013-14 to 2016-17 which was found recorded in the regular books of accounts of M/s Binny Limited and the balance sum of Rs.120 crores is noted to have been separately offered to tax as the company’s unaccounted income by their Director [which offer was later retracted. And Binny Limited, approached the Settlement Commission wherein the Settlement Commission made an addition of ₹120 Cr. which issue is challenged before the Hon’ble High Court by both Binny Ltd. & M/s. KLP Projects].

3. It was also gathered by the search team that M/s Binny Limited had entered into a joint venture agreement with SPR Group to develop a certain parcel of land at Cook Road, Chennai for which it had received security deposit of Rs.250 crores, which was also recorded in their regular books of accounts. Later on in the post search enquiries, it was gathered that, out of the sums which were received through banking channel, M/s Binny Limited had inter alia advanced sums to the extent of Rs.212.56 crores to seven (7) concerns, which the Investigating authorities were unable to trace at their given addresses upon spot verification. Subsequently, the assessee who is the Managing Director of M/s Binny Limited was summoned u/s 131 of the Act and was asked to explain the nature of advances given by M/s Binny Ltd. to these seven (7) concerns, to which he inter alia stated that, the company, M/s Binny Limited was required to incur cash expenses for development of the land parcels, and therefore the company had made these bogus advances to generate unaccounted cash, which was received by the company and utilized to meet their expenses. It was further gathered by the Investigating Officer that similar modus operandi was