IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2953 & 2954/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17

ORDER

PER C.N. PRASAD, JM:

These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) -27, New Delhi dated 23.05.2023 for the A.Y. 2015- 16 and 2016-17 in rendering a finding for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, though be deleted the addition in the absence of any incriminating material found in the course of search.

2. The assessee has raised the following common grounds of appeal :-

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (Appeals)-27, New Delhi [the CIT(A)] has erred in directing the Assessing Officer under section 150(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act) to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act, for the assessment year 2015-16.

2. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that the directions issued under section 150(1) of the Act are beyond the scope and powers of section 150(1)

of the Act read with Explanation (2) to section 153(6) of the Act.

3. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that a finding/direction within the meaning of section 150 of the Act can be issued only where the income of a particular assessment year is taxable, for another assessment year and / or the income assessed in the hands of person "A" is liable to be assessed in the hands of person "B" i.e. person other than "A".

4. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that since no incrementing material was found during search allegedly conducted on the Appellant, therefore, direction to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act, for the assessment year 2015-16 was beyond the scope of powers of the CIT(A)-the appellate authorities under the Act.

5. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that the import of section 150(2) of the Act that overrides the provisions of section 150(1) of the Act.

6. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that since the assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 made under section 153A r/w 143(3) of the Act has been annulled because no incrementing material was found during search, hence, there was fundamental lack of jurisdiction, as such, finding or direction to initiate proceedings under section 147, for the very same year is nothing but rowing and fishing enquiries, which is impermissible.

7. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that the information based on which order u/s. 153A/143(3) of the Act was concluded, was already available with the Income-tax Department. Inter-alia, Assessing Officer making addition on the ground of data gathered from stock exchange, which was already in the possession of the Department. No incriminating material found during the search relative to data gathered from stock exchange.

8. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that invoking of section 153A of the Act merely on the basis of Panchanama in absence of execution of search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act.

9. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that no action in pursuant to execution of search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act has been carri