आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.1084 to 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2019-20)

M/s ACE Tyres (P) Ltd Vs. ACIT Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) PAN:AADCA2210N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: Shri M.V.Prasad, CA राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President These six appeals by the assessee are directed against the six separate orders dated 29/05/2025, 30/05/2025, 04/06/2025, 096/06/2025, 17/06/2025 and 14/07/2025 of the learned CIT (A)-11, Hyderabad arising from the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, pursuant to the search & seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act, dated 04/01/2023 in case of Exel Group of Companies including the assessee for the A.Ys 2014-15 to 2019-20 respectively. Since common issues are raised in these group of six appeals arising from same facts and search and seizure operation, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all these appeals were clubbed together for the purpose of hearing and adjudication. For the purpose of recording the facts, the appeal in ITA No.1084/Hyd/2025 for the A.Y 2014-15 is taken as lead case.

2. The assessee has raised identical grounds for all these six years except some extra grounds raised for the A.Y 2019-20. The grounds of appeal in ITA No.1084/Hyd/2025 are reproduced as under:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in both law and facts while passing the Order.

2. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the ground that the issue of Notice U/ s 148 by the Assessing Officer is without Jurisdiction.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the ground that the issue of Notice u/s 148 by the Assessing Officer is bad in law as the Assessing Officer has not fulfilled the prescribed conditions laid down under Section 148 and consequently the Assessment is void ab initio.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the ground that the notice issued u/s 148 and consequent Assessment is in valid in law as the Assessing Officer has not complied the provisions of Section 149 of the Income Tax Act.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the legal grounds.

6. On the facts and circumstance of the case that the Assessment Order Passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 148 is vitiated and has become unsustainable in law since the approval u/s 148B has been accorded by Addl CIT/JCIT(

Range head in a mechanical manner.

7. On the facts and circumstance of the case, sanction under Section 151 of the Act, has been granted mechanically and without satisfaction that how it fits under Section 149(1)(b)(i) and Section 149(1)(b)(ii). Accordingly grant of sanction is liable to be declared as nullity and invalid and resultantly, impugned notice under Section 148 is bad in law.

Modified Ground No.7 On the facts and circumstance of the case, sanction under Section 151 of the Act, has been granted mechanically and without satisfaction that how it fits under Section 149(1)(b)(i) and Section 149(1)(b)(iii). Accordingly grant of sanction is liable to be declared as nullity and invalid and resultantly, impugned notice under Section 148 is bad in law.

8. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.7,35,052/ -.

9. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time e of hearing of the appeal.”

3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the assessee company is part of Exel group, was subjected to search & seizure actio