आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 148 & 149/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12)

Imtiaz Farooqi DCIT, Central Circle-1(3)

PAN :AADPF1807D Vs. Hyderabad / Appellant / Respondent अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी

/Assessee by: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, AR निर्धाररती द्वधरध /Revenue by: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Sr.DR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध /Date of hearing: 26/02/2025 सुिवधई की तधरीख /Pronouncement on: 19/03/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M:

Aggrieved by the orders dated 04/03/2022 for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“learned CIT(A)”), in the case of Imtiaz Farooqi(“the assessee”), assessee preferred these appeals. In view of the similarity of the facts and identical nature of the issues, we deem it just and convenient to dispose of both these appeals by way of this common order, by taking the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 as a lead case.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deriving income from salary, house property, business and other sources. He is also the proprietor of M/s Infoway Technologies and Managing Director of M/s United Railroad Constructions Private Limited.

3. For the assessment year 2010-11 he filed the return of income on 22/11/2010 and assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was complete by order dated 28/1/2013. There was a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act on 20/7/2015. Based on the statement of the assessee made on 20/7/2015 and also from the entries in assessee’s bank account, and on verification of the information learned Assessing Officer made three additions, namely, Rs.1.44 crores towards the undisclosed income from Sh. Vamsheedhar, Rs.10,47,778/- towards undisclosed income from Sh. Sreenivasa Sivakumar and Rs.10,19,040/-

towards undisclosed monthly pension from LIC.

4. Aggrieved by such an action of the learned Assessing Officer assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and contended that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search, qua the assessment year, any additions to the total income of the assessee in the concluded assessment, cannot be made. The other contention of the assessee was that the amounts from Sh. Vamsheedhar and Sh. Sreenivasa Sivakumar were the advance amounts that were made earlier and received during the current year, whereas the amount received from the LIC is exempt from tax.

5. Learned CIT(A) did not agree with the contentions raised by the assessee and recorded that the execution of warrant makes it obligatory on the part of the learned Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings under section 153A of the Act, there is no mention of the seized material by the legislature in section 153A of the Act and, therefore, anything which is not to be found in the legislature as to the availability of incriminating material cannot be read into the same. On this premise, learned CIT(A) held that non-availability of incriminating material cannot be a limiting factor on the jurisdiction of the learned Assessing Officer.

6. Assessee, therefore, preferred these appeals on many grounds, but the main plank of argument of the learned AR is that when there is no incriminating material found during the search in case of a concluded assessment, no addition could be made. According to him, authorities below failed to appreciate the difference between the abated and un-abated assessments and the well settled principle under section 153A of the Act that the jurisdiction to make assessment for a concluded assessment is limited to incriminating material found during the course of search. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the latest decision of the Hon'ble Ape