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

SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6191/Mum/2024 to 6196/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Mrs. Rupal Kashyap Mehta Vs. DCIT CC 4(1)

26/27, A Wing Mumbai Ahuja Towers Rajabhau Desai Road Prabhadevi Mumbai – 400 025 PAN/GIR No.AGRPM5338E (Appellant) .. (Respondent Assessee by Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal (Hybrid) / Shri Satish Kumar Gupta Revenue by Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/02/2025 / O R D E R आदेश PER BENCH:

The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against the appellate orders dated 18/10/2024 passed by the CIT (A) for the AYs 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2018-19, whereby the respective assessment orders passed on 28/12/2019 u/s 153A of the Act were confirmed. There was an income-tax search in the premises of the assessee on 06/10/2017 having a joint search warrant as per the panchnama placed on record in the name of the assessees Kashyap Kanaiyalal Mehta, Rupal Kashyap Mehta, Sunshine Housing & Infrastructure (P) Ltd, Zenith Barter (P) Ltd only.

2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in brief are as below:

Firstly, addition made in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search in the premises of the assessee where the material relied was found in income-tax searches with no common search / joint warrant in searches.

Secondly, no mandatory DIN on the body of the assessment orders.

Thirdly, incompetent and mechanical approval u/s 153D of the Act by the Addl CIT.

Lastly, illegal jurisdiction of the AO based on a void ab initio assessment jurisdictional order passed u/s 127(2) of the Act.

3. Brief facts are that during the course of the search, statements of the assessee and her husband, Mr Kashyap Kanaiyalal Mehta were recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The assessee categorically stated therein that her all financial matters are handled by her husband. It is also an admitted fact, that no material or information qua the additions made in all the assessment orders in appeal were found during the course of search as the AO has also not mentioned any such material having being detected during the search action in the premises of the assessee. Whatever material has been referred to in the assessment order as confronted to the husband of the assessee during the course of search, was available with the Authorised Officers at the relevant time having being procured from extraneous sources in income-tax searches elsewhere at different times and in none of those search warrants, the name of the assessee was appearing as per panchnamas or information of those searches placed on record. Thus, those searches were independent income-tax searches. AO‟s main reliance is based on the statement of her husband Mr Kashyap Kanaiyalal Mehta.

4. In the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 10/10/2017, the husband of the assessee was shown the statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act elsewhere to rebut while recording the statement of the husband in respect of the additions made to reject the claim of Long term capital gains as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act for the period relevant to the AY 2012-13, the husband of the assessee was asked the following questions:

Q.25 Please state whether you or any of your family members have invested in the shares of D. B. (International)

Stock Brokers Limited?

Ans. Sir, I confirm that the following persons have invested in D. B. (International) Stock Brokers Limited:

Q.26 Please state whether you or any of your family members have invested in the shares of Shree Nath Commercial & Finance Limited?

Ans. Sir, I confirm that the following persons have invested in Shree Nath Commercial & Finance Limited:

Q.29 What do you know about the business activity of D. B.

(International) Stock Brokers Limited and Shree Nath Commercial & Finance Ltd?

Ans. Sir, I am not aware about the same. I have invested in the shares of D. B