Consolidated satisfaction note under S.153C without year-specific incriminating material invalidates jurisdiction for assessments.

ORDER

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The captioned Appeals in ITA Nos. 5979/Del/2025 and5980/Del/2205 are filed by the Assessee challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 10/07/2025for A.Y 2018-19 and 2019-20, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Further, the Assessee has also filed Appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 16/07/2025 for A.Y 2019-20, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the penalty passed under Section 271 AAAC(1) of the Act.

2. As the Appeals are filed by single Assessee, the same are heard together and decided in this common order. For the sake of convenience, the Grounds of Appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19 (quantum) are reproduced as under:-

ITA No. 5979/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19)

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of case, the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred as "CIT(A)" by arbitrarily confirming addition of Rs. 34,00,000/-, is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, initiation of assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act for AY 2018-19 by recording consolidated satisfaction note for all assessment years 2014-15 to 2020-21 is bad in law and liable to be quashed being proceedings initiated u/s 153C is in violation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) v. Sunil Kumar Sharma [2024] 165 taxmann.com 846 (SC) that satisfaction note has to be recorded separately for each assessment year.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Commissioner of Income tax, Central Range - 7, New Delhi erred in law for giving his approval mechanically u/s 153D of the Act without judicious application of mind and hence assessment order so passed is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

4 That on the facts and circumstances of case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in confirming addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act being unexplained investment in property made by AO merely on the basis of irrelevant and un-substantiated document seized from the premises of third person during the course of search action which were not in handwriting of the appellant and also no independent corroborative material brought on record which could prove alleged transaction.

5 That on the facts and circumstances of case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in confirming addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act being unexplained investment in property made by AO in arbitrary and mechanical manner by arbitrarily rejecting the explanation put forth by the appellant that no such alleged amounts in cash were paid for construction of property without bringing any cogent or substantive material on record which could prove contrary.

6. That on the facts and circumstances of case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in confirming addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act without appreciating the fact that appellant has furnished abundant documentary evidences to prove total expenses incurred on construction of property along with its source and also without getting the valuation of said property from a Government Approved Valuer to verify/ know the correct value of construction work done even though appellant has specifically requested.

7. That the grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other.

8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.