Unabated assessments under section 153A require incriminating material discovered during a search, or assessments must remain undisturbed without such material.

ORDER

PER BENCH

Common facts and similar grounds arise in the above captioned appeals of the assessee; therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order.

2. The above captioned appeals for Assessment Years(‘AYs’) 2011-12, 2013- 14 to 2017-18 filed by the assesseeare directed against orders dated 29.10.2024, 31,03.2024, 28.03.2024, 03.05.2024, 03.05.2024 and 10.05.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Lucknow-3 [‘CIT(A)’] respectively.

3. Following grounds have been raised in the ITA No. 63/DDN/2024, AY 2014-15:

1. The learned assessing officer passed assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without jurisdiction and is void ab-inito.

2. There was no search warrant in the name of appellant, here was no incriminating material seized during the search operation from hands of the appellant and there was no panchnama drawn in the appellant.

3. The special audit report u/s 142(2A) is invalid as the special audit was conducted against the provisions of law.

4. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.4,10,817/- being net negative cash as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

5. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.1,05,10,000/- on account of alleged purchase of property from Mr. Mohan Pal as alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

6. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have ered in making and confirming addition of Rs.10,66,71,000/- on account of alleged purchase of property from Mr. Mohan Pal as alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

7. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.2,94,00,000/- on account of alleged purchase of property from Mr. Mohan Pal as alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

8. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.5,00,000/- received from Daljeet Tanjea as advance allegedly as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

9. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs35,00,000/- allegedly as unexplained investment u/s 69 on account of alleged payments made to Randhir Singh, Ramveer Singh and Ganesh Singh.

10. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.3,16,000/- for alleged purchase of agriculture land from Mr. Amar Raj Gupta as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

11. The orders passed are arbitrary, against the provisions of law and facts of the case.

12. The appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any at the time or before hearing of appeal.”

3.1 Almost similar grounds are raised except the quantum of addition in all years except the AY 2017-18.

3.2 Following grounds have been raised in the ITA No. 76/DDN/2024, AY 2017-18:

“1. The learned assessing officer has passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without jurisdiction.

2. The case of the appellant does not fall under any of the categories for compulsory scrutiny as per criteria of selection of cases for compulsory scrutiny.

3. There was no search warrant in the name of appellant. There was no incriminating material seized during the search operation from hands of the appellant and there was no panchnama drawn in the name of the appellant.

4. The special audit report u/s 142(2A) is invalid as the special audit was conducted against the provisions of law.

5. The le