आदशे / O R D E R PER BENCH:

These appeals preferred by the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee arise from the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Chennai, dated 29.03.2025 for Assessment Years (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2014-15 to 2017-18 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘).

2. It is noted that, except for variation in figures, the observations and findings rendered by the lower authorities are verbatim same across all these years and therefore, with the consent of both the parties, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The background facts concerning these appeals are that, the assessee is an individual who runs proprietorship concerns by the name and style M/s Skyway Associates which is engaged in undertaking contract work for underground cables. It is observed that, a search action was conducted u/s 132(4) of the Act in the premises of one, Shri CP Anbunathan [in short ‘CPA’] on 22.04.2016, in the course of which, several diaries/books were seized which inter alia contained notings six (6) account book(s) which were found and seized vide ANN/FAY/CPA/B&D/S-1. It was brought to our notice that, Shri CPA, in his statement u/s 132(4) of the Act had admitted that, these account books related to his real estate and finance commission business. Thereafter, a sequel search action was conducted u/s 132 of the Act on the premises of the assessee on 10.05.2016, and further searches were also conducted upon Shri CPA and Shri Giridharan [in short ‘Giri’] on 10.05.2016. It is not in dispute that there was no incriminating material whatsoever found from the premises of the assessee. Hence, in absence of any incriminating material unearthed in the course of search, proceedings u/s 153A of the Act were not initiated in the matters of the assessee. The AO however was of the view that, the notebooks seized from the premises of Shri CPA suggested that it contained notings in relation to coal commission which the assessee would receive on behalf of Shri N R Viswanathan [in short ‘NRV’]. The AO is accordingly found to have recorded his satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act that the notings found in the notebooks inter alia contained information which relates to the assessee who received commission on behalf of NRV, and therefore had a bearing on the determination of his total income and thus issued notice(s) u/s 153C of the Act on 04.12.2018. It is seen that, the assessee in response filed his return(s) of income disclosing total income as originally declared u/s 139(1) of the Act. The AO, in the course of assessment, observed that the assessee was a relative of Shri NRV and that Shri NRV was deriving coal commission which was being collected by the assessee on his behalf. The AO, in this regard, referred to the statements of Shri CPA and Shri Sivakumar Singaravelu [in short ‘Shri SSU’] who, according to the AO, had averred that they were handing over cash for Shri NRV through the assessee. The AO in the assessment completed u/s 153C of the Act on 31.12.2018 essentially reproduced the findings and reasoning set out in the income-tax assessments of Shri NRV, wherein the notings found in the notebooks of Shri CPA had been substantively assessed. The AO was of the view that, since the assessee was receiving the coal commission on behalf of Shri NRV, and the bifurcation and explanations as to the sums received by the assessee had not been provided, the amounts which were substantively added in the hands of Shri NRV was taxed on protective basis in the hands of the assessee. Being aggrieved by these protective assessment(s), the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and the gamut of facts available on record, observed that, the assessee had denied to have dealt with the cash matters of Shri