IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.3141 & 3142/Del/2025 [Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20]

M/s. Shabnam Bharatinder vs DCIT, Singh, 70 D, Sainik Farms, Central Circle-32, New Delhi-110062 N ew Delhi PAN-ANRPS3607D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Adv. Respondent by Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

The captioned appeals are filed by assessee against the separate orders, both dated 17.03.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-30, NewDelhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. 30/10352/2017-18 and in Appeal No. 30/10590/2018-19 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment orders, both dated 30.03.2023 passed u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-

20 respectively.

2. As both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee have similar issues which are inter-linked, inter-connected and this fact has been admitted by both the parties during the course of hearing before us, therefore, both the appeals filed by the assessee are decided by a common order.

3. First, we take the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.3141/Del/2025 for AY 2018-19.

ITA No.3141/Del/2025 [Assessment Year : 2018-19]

4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed her return of income on 30.10.2018, declaring total income of INR 10,35,380/-. A search and seizure operation was carried out at various premises of Shri Kuldeep Bishnoi Group and its associates on 23.07.2019. Various documents/books of accounts etc. were found and seized and statements of various persons were recorded. It was found that some incriminating material found and seized contained some entries related to the assessee. Subsequently, satisfactions were recorded by AO of the searched person as well as AO of the person other than the searched person and, notice u/s 153C was issued on 07.01.2022. In compliance to the notice issued u/s 153C, the assessee filed return on 02.02.2022, declaring total income of INR 10,35,380/-. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued followed by various notices issued from time to time to the assessee. After considering the submissions made and material furnished by the assessee, the AO assessed the income of the assessee at INR 20,85,380/- vide assessment order dated 30.03.2023 passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.

5. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 17.03.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:-

A. “Because the impugned order has erred on facts and circumstances of the case and prevailing law by failing to appreciate that the assessment order passed under S. 153C of the Act, was in excess of jurisdiction as the Respondent did not demonstrate that the dairy of Late Sh. Sukumar Poria 'pertains' to the Appellant.

B. Because the impugned order is contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla and Ors. MANU/SC/0168/1998. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that 'entries' can be considered as a piece of evidence only when they satisfy the test of relevancy, i.e. that the entries have been made in a book of account, maintained as per accounting principles and regularly kept in the course of business. In the present case, neither the Respondent has attempted nor demonstrated that diary notings represents the books of accounts of Sh. Kuldeep Bishnoi or the present Appellant. On the contrary, it is the Revenue's own case that the diary notings belonged to or pertained to Late Sh. Sukumar Poria.

C. Because the impugned order has erred on facts and circumstances of the case and prevailing law by failing to appreci