IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18)

Gopal Garg DCIT, H.No.90, Sector-15, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Faridabad.

Haryana-121003. Vs.

PAN:AHLPG2578D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. and Sh. Ayush Garg, CA Department by Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement 23/04/2025

O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM, This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [“the CIT” in short], Gurugram, in Appeal No.11604/CIT(A)-3/GGN/2016-17 dated 26.10.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18 passed y/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short).

2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and is sole proprietor of M/s Jitendra Enterprises. Besides this assessee is having salary income from the companies where he is one of the director and also having rental and interest income. The return of income for the year under appeal was filed on at

30.10.2017 declaring total income of 14,85,360/-. A search and seizure action was carried out u/s 132 of the Act in the case of SRS group of cases on 06.06.2018. The search action u/s 132 of the Act was also carried out at the residential and business premises of the assessee and his group companies. During the course of search no incrementing material was found/seized from the possession of assessee or any of the group concerns as is evident from the assessment order. During the course of search, one pen drive was found and seized from the premises of M/s Jitendra Enterprises which contains the trial balance of the assessee and other group companies. As per the trial balance of Rs.

proprietary firm of assessee, he had taken unsecured loan of

30,00,000/- from M/s Destiny Gems and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. The AO based on the statements recorded of employees and directors of SRS group during the course of post search investigation its case, hold that the company M/s Destiny Gems and Jewellers is Rs.

a shell company and made an addition of 30,00,000/- towards unsecured loan in the hands of assessee in the assessment completed under section 153A of the Act.

3. Against such order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein it was also claimed by the assessee that no incriminating material was found from the possession of the assessee, therefore, addition could not be made in the order passed/s 153A of the Act. Further, addition was challenged on merits. However, Ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the contention of the assessee and dismissed the appeal, therefore, the present appeal is filed by the assessee before the Tribunal.

4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order passed by the learned AO under Section 153A is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been framed consequent to a search which itself was unlawful and invalid in the eye of law.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the additions made by the AO under Section 153A are bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during the course of the search.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the proceedings initiated under section 153A against the appellant and the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) are in violation of the statutory conditions of the Act and the proced