IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMARAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA Nos. 513 to 516/Coch/2023 (AYs:2009-10 to 2012-13)

M/s. R.C. Park, .... Appellant Ward V, 52A1-A13, Kunnamkulam, Trichur [PAN :AAGFR 9528 J]

vs.

DCIT, Central Circle-II, .... Respondents Kozhikode.

Assessee by: Shri Arun Raj S, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 06.08.2025

O R D E R

Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM Theseappealsfiled by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi-3 [CIT(A)]dated 16/06/2023for the Assessment Years(A.Y.) 2009-10 to

2012-13respectively.

2. Since identical facts and issues involved in all these appeals, these appeals heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts relevant to the A.Y.2009-10 in ITA No.513/Coch/2023 are stated herein.

4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firmengaged in the business of sale and purchase of Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) and also running bar & restaurants. The search & seizure operations u/sec. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’)were conducted on 26/09/2012at the business premises of the assessee. During the course of such search and seizure operations, certain incriminating material was stated to have been found and seized. The incriminating material, so seized, revealed that assessee has earned huge unaccounted income from sale of IMFL, sale of food and other beverages. Based on this information, the DCIT, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode (for short, 'AO') issued notices u/s. 153A of the Act on 21/06/2013.In response to the notices issued u/s. 153A, return of income for the A.Y.2009-10 was filed by the assessee on

23/09/2013 declaring income of Rs.66,54,330/-.

5. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the AO at a total income of Rs. 1,23,54,030/- after making addition of Rs. 43,53,104/- on account of sale of IMFL; Rs. 6,19,911/- on account of sale of food and Rs. 7,26,685/- on account of sale of beverages.

6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). It was contended before the CIT(A) that the assessment order passed by the AO is invalid as the JCIT had granted a mechanical approval u/sec. 153D of the Act and the additions cannot be made in absence of any incriminating material. However, the CIT(A)

rejected the contention of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 359 (Bom). The learned CIT(A) also rejected the argument that the additions cannot be made in absence of any incriminating material found by placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of G.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT [(2016) 75 taxmann.com 215 (Ker.)] and CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [332 ITR 537]. Thus, the learned CIT(A)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

8. The assessee raised grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the very validity of assessment order on the ground that the approval u/sec. 153D granted by the JCIT is without application of mind, therefore the assessment order is bad in law. It was submitted that last date of hearing by the AO was on 19/03/2015 at Calicut, but the concerned JCIT was stationed at Kochi and the final assessment orders were passed on 30/03/2015 in all 35 cases. Based on these facts, it was submitted that it is impossible to apply his mind on the entire assessment records and seized material within such a short period, as the AO and the JCIT were located at different places, therefore, it should be presumed to have accorded approval mechanically. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of ACIT vs. M/s.Serajuddin & Co.