IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1892 to 1895/MUM/2025 (Assessment Years:2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19)

DCIT, Central Circle v/s. Piyush Arun Bongirwar

8(4), Mumbai 111, Shalaka Building, 11th Room No. 659, 6th Floor, Floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Near Cooperage Telephone, Road, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: ABMPB4761G Appellant .. Respondent CO No.160 to 163/Mum/2025 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19)

Piyush Arun v/s. DCIT, Central Circle 8(4), Bongirwar Mumbai

111, Shalaka Building, Room No. 659, 6^th Floor, 11th Floor, Maharshi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Karve Road, Near Mumbai 400020 Cooperage Telephone, Mumbai 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: ABMPB4761G Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Aditya M. Rai - SR. DR Date of Hearing 18.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH [A.M.] :-

These four appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal CIT (A) 50, Mumbai 22.01.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19 and the assessee has filed corresponding cross objections.

2.

i. The revenue has raised the following common grounds in these appeals.

“1. Whether ground that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the whereas the incrementing material, which was seized, was not available, Officer during the same was available and was duly relied upon by the Assessing the assessment proceedings.

2. Whether under Section the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the assessment order passed under section 153C of the Act was based on the incrementing material which was seized, Cleary established the nexus between the seized material and the income assessed.

3. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) ignored the fact that the assessee failed to provide the any explanation for incrementing material which was seized, clearly indicated in the involvement of the assessee in the unaccounted transactions. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessment order was not based on any material on found or seized during the search, which is contrary to the fact and evidence record.

5. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify and/ or delete any or all of the above said grounds of appeal, the appellant reserves its right to file further submissions in the appeal.”

ii. Grounds taken in the cross objection:

“CO Ground 1 - The Ld. CIT A has correctly allowed the Assessees appeal by observing that no incriminating material was found during the search that pertained to the Assessee, particularly in relation to the amount of loans and advances which formed the basis of the addition by the Assessing Officer. The seized documents relied upon by the AO neither belonged to the Assessee nor contained any reference indicating that such transactions, Loans and Advances were unaccounted or attributable to the Assessee. The addition made in the assessment was based entirely on presumptions and without support from any seized evidence, which is a pre-requisite under section 153C. The CIT Appeals findings are therefore legally and factually sound and deserve to be upheld.

CO Ground 2 - The Ld. CIT A rightly concluded that the seized material, even if assumed to be available with the Assessing Officer, was not incriminating in nature vis-a-vis the Assessee and thus could not be used to support addition in proceedings initiated under section 153C. It is submitted that the ground taken by the appellant - Revenue is factually incorrect as the addition made by the AO has not been based on the seized material. There is no mention of any loans and advances in the documents seized during the search that the Revenue claims to be related to the Assessee. Hence, the CIT Appea