आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 356, 357, 358 & 360/CHD/2024 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष(cid:91) / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The DCIT, Vs AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, 154, 1st Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Ludhiana. Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi.

èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AALCA0327J अपीलाथ(cid:568)/Appellant (cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/Respondent &

C.O. Nos. 17 to 20/CHD/2025 in ITA Nos.356,357,358 & 360 /CHD/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष(cid:91) / 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, 154, 1st Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Vs Central Circle-2, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Ludhiana.

Delhi.

èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BDIPG3875K अपीलाथ(cid:568)/Appellant (cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/Respondent Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Date of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The present four appeals are directed at the instance of Revenue against the separate orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 16.01.2024, 16.01.2024, 17.01.2024 and 18.01.2024 passed in assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20and 2020-21 respectively.

2. On receipt of notices in these appeals, assessee has filed Cross Objections bearing No. 17, 18, 19 and 20/CHD/2025 respectively.

3. The Registry has pointed out that Cross Objections are time barred by 326 days. Before adverting to the delay caused by the assessee in filing these Cross Objections, we take note of the issues agitated in the Cross Objections. In assessment year 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2019-20, the assessee has taken three preliminary jurisdictional issues in the Cross Objection, namely, that no search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out on the Registered Office of the assessee company, therefore, assessment u/s 153A ought to have not been framed upon the assessee. Accordingly, this assessment is ab-initio void.

4. The second ground taken by the assessee is that since no search was carried out upon the assessee and no incriminating material was seized, therefore, assessment ought to have not been framed u/s 153A. According to the assessee, AO has been using the digital data found in the search carried out upon M/s Homeland Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., then assessment ought to have been passed u/s 153C and not u/s 153A of the Act. The last common ground in all four assessment years taken by the assessee is that approval required to be granted by the Addl. CIT, Ludhiana u/s 153D has not been granted in accordance with the guidelines laid down for granting such approvals. In other words, the approval is a mechanical approval and hence, assessment orders are not sustainable.

5. The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay in all these four Cross Objections. In its application, it has been pleaded that their Tax Consultant Shri Avinash Jain was of the view that since ld. CIT (Appeals) has granted relief and deleted the additions made by the AO, therefore, there is no need for the assessee to litigate with the Department any more. However, when Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal and assessee took advice from other consultant for arguing these appeals, then it was advised to challenge the impugned assessment order on these issues also which have been raised before the ld. CIT (Appeals) but no finding was recorded.

6. Apart from above, ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that impugned order is open for debate in the appeals of Revenue, then assessee is at liberty to take any plea which can upheld the impugned order. He made reference to rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Rules, which read as under :

“Respondent may support order on grounds decided against him “The Respondent, thou