IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year :2012-13 to 2018-19 (Assessment Year :2012-13 to 2018-19 (Assessment Year :2012-13 to 2018-19 (Assessment Year :2012-13 to 2018-19 (Assessment Year :2012-13 to 2018-19 (Assessment Year :2012-13 to 2018-19 (Assessment Year :2012-13 to 2018-19 (Assessment Year :2012-13 to 2018-19 (Assessment Year :2012-13 to 2018-19 Assessee by Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal (virtually present) and Shri Satish Kumar (physically present)

Revenue by Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR Date of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement 06/01/2026 / O R D E R आदेश PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

These appeals, being ITA Nos. 6505 to

6511/Mum/2025, have been preferred by the assessee, Shri Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, against separate but similarly worded orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai, pertaining to Assessment Years

2012-13 to 2018-19. Since the issues involved in all the appeals arise from a common search action, rest on an identical factual matrix, and involve overlapping questions of law and jurisdiction, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience, consistency, and judicial economy.

2. The assessee was subjected to a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 18 December 2017, as per the panchnama drawn in his name. The search proceedings continued over multiple days and concluded on 21 December 2017. Simultaneously, survey proceedings under section 133A of the Act were also carried out at the business premises of the assessee. Consequent to the said search, assessments for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2017-18 were framed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act, while the assessment for Assessment Year

2018-19 was framed under section 143(3).

3. In the assessment orders so passed, the Assessing Officer made various additions, primarily on account of:

• alleged cash loans advanced to Shri Nilesh Bharani /

Evergreen Enterprises, treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act;

• notional interest computed thereon and brought to tax under section 56 of the Act; and • for Assessment Year 2018-19, addition on account of alleged unexplained jewellery under section 69A of the Act.

4. The year-wise details of the additions made by the Assessing Officer are tabulated below:

5. The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal for each of the assessment years. However, the grounds, in substance, revolve around the following principal grievances:

(i) that the additions have been made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search at the premises of the assessee, and therefore, in respect of completed / unabated assessment years, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A itself is invalid;

(ii) that the Assessing Officer has relied upon materials and documents found during income-tax searches conducted in the cases of third parties, without there being any common warrant or joint search, and without invoking the provisions of section 153C of the Act;

(iii) that the additions are founded almost entirely on statements recorded under section 132(4), which statements were later retracted and are not supported by any incriminating material;

(iv) that the approval granted under section 153D of the Act was mechanical and without application of mind; and (v) that the addition under section 69A in respect of jewellery for Assessment Year 2018-19 has been made without properly appreciating the explanation, evidences, and family ownership of the jewellery.

6. During the course of the search action conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on 18 December 2017 and thereafter till its conclusion on 21 December 2017, statements of the assessee were recorded under section 132(4) of the Act on multiple occasions. It is an admitted position on record