IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2065/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2013-14] ITA No. 2066/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2014-15] ITA No. 2067/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2015-16] ITA No. 2068/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2016-17]

Shri Bhagwat Dayal Vs. The Dy. CI.T.

H. No. D-958, 60 Ft. Road Central Circle - 2 Chawla Colony, Ballabgarh Faridabad Faridabad, Haryana PAN: AJBPD 8984 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :-

The above captioned four appeals by the assessee are directed against four separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated

28.01.2025 for A.Y 2013-14 to 2016-17 respectively.

2. Since these appeals pertain to same assessee and involve common issues, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3. Though the assessee has raised as many as 9 grounds of appeal, the solitary grievance raised by the relates to the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] when there was no incriminating document/material found during the course of search.

4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We heard the ld. DR at length who assisted us with the facts of the case. Case records carefully perused and considered.

5. Additions were challenged before the ld. CIT(A) claiming that the additions are devoid of any reference to incriminating material found during the course of search and the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A is bad in law. After considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer, hence the aggrieved assessee is before us.

6. The ld. DR stated before us that the additions are made on the basis of deposits in the bank. The ld DR however, did not controvert the fact that no incriminating materials were found with regard to the additions and heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

7. We have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the relevant material on record. We find that a search u/s 132 on SRS group took place on 06.06.2018 and the assessee, a director in many group concerns of the SRS group, was issued notice u/s 153A on 03.12.2019. We also note that the admitted fact is that AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15, AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 are unabated assessments years. Another uncontroverted fact is that the additions are made on the basis of deposits in bank and are not based on any incriminating materials. The issue of addition in an unabated assessment year and the role of incriminating material is no longer res- integra and has been settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell [supra] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under:

i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A;

ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated;

iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material