IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 ITA No.1176/Del/2023 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s RG Home Furnishing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (Formerly known as M/s Akash Central Circle, Home Furnishing Pvt. Ltd.), Karnal.

House No.41-42, Gandhi Mandi, Panipat – 132103.

PAN: AADCG5350R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Aseem Chawal, Sr. Advocate; &

Shri Jasmeet Singh, Shri Pushpendra Bhadurya & Shri Pranav Menon, Advocates.

Revenue by : Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

These appeal are preferred by the assessee against the orders dated

30.06.2022, 15.07.2022 & 29.03.2023 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeals No.10288, 10289, 10291, 10303, 10306/2018-19, 10309 and nil arising out of the appeals before it against the orders passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3)/271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO) for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2015-16, respectively.

2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the two appeals 2132 and 2133 have common issues involved and, in fact, the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) was a consolidated order for AYs 2011-12 to 2015-16 and the appeal for AY 2016-17 was decided separately. Then there is an appeal against levy of penalty for AY 2015-16. The same arise out of the assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and the ld. counsel has pointed out that vide order dated 28.08.2025 the assessee’s appeal with regard to assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act for AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15, vide ITA no. 2128/Del/2022 to 2131/Del/2022, have been decided by the coordinate Bench wherein the coordinate Bench has quashed the assessment orders as they were not found to be on the basis of the incriminating material found during the search in regard to those years which were unabated assessment years.

3. Now, the present years before us are abated assessment years and the ld. counsel has primarily submitted that in these two years before us also the alleged seized material found cannot be considered to be incriminating and no addition on the basis of the same could have been made.

4. The ld. DR has defended the proposition and submitted that the Assessing Officer has examined the facts and circumstances in right perspective and submitted referring to the post search inquiries it was submitted that the seized materials certainly indicated incriminating circumstances and the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of purchase of plant and machinery in question and there was bogus claim of depreciation.

5. As for completeness the basic facts are that a search was conducted at the business premises of M/s Garg Group of companies and residence premises of its directors on 22.06.2016 and the assessee company is one of the concerns of the said group which was covered u/s 132 of the Act. The cases were centralized by an order u/s 157 of the Act. On perusal of ledger accounts of M/s Fibretech Enterprises, M/s Malik International, M/s Supreme International & M/s Zenith Enterprises in the books of account of assessee company for the F.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 which were obtained from its books of accounts. It was noted by the ld. AO that machinery worth Rs.10,52,64,000/- has been shown as purchased from the above mentioned four concerns. During the course of post-search proceedings, the assessee company was specifically asked to furnish the information like copies of all purchase bills along with date of purchase, amount, description of machinery, mode of transport, complete name & address of the so called suppliers of the machinery with their PAN, Tin & bank accounts to prove the genuineness