IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.3509 to 3515/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 to 2017-18 Sh. Purushttam Lal Soni, Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Office at 4/14, Income Tax, W.E.A. Saraswati Marg, Central Circle-14, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Delhi -110005 PAN: ASAPS8674C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Rahul Yadav, AR Department by Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)

Date of hearing 04.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 17.12.2025

ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos. 3509 to

3515/Del/2025 for assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s orders dated 27.01.2025 (for AYs: 2011-12 to 2015-16 & 2017-18) and 06.02.2025 (for AY: 2016-17) passed in case Nos. 10446/2019-20, 10473/2019-20, 10475/2019-20, 10476/2019-20, 10477/2019-20, 10478/2019-20 and 10479/2019-20, involving proceedings under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2. In view of larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), following delay(s) in filing these respective appeals are condoned:

3. We take up the assessee’s first and foremost appeal ITA No.

3509/Del/2025 in assessment years 2011-12 as the “lead” case raising the following substantive grounds:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without there being any incriminating material found during the search pertaining to AY 2011-12, which is a non-abated assessment year.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire assessment was bad in law and void ab initio in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of the search, thereby contravening the binding precedent laid down in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (61 taxmann.com 412) by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 84,91,24,660/- as unexplained cash payments and Rs. 167,95,74,275/-as unexplained cash receipts made by Ld. AO, merely based on unverified electronic data allegedly extracted from seized devices, without proper certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 2,13,40,250/- on account of alleged unsecured loans and Rs. 4,26,805/- on account of commission thereon, without any supporting evidence, ignoring the appellant's explanation and request to provide the underlying seized data and its computation methodology.

5. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire assessment proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, as the final show cause notice was issued at the end of limitation, without providing adequate time or access to seized material for rebuttal.

6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not quashing the assessment order which was passed beyond the statutory time limit under section 153B of the Act and was antedated to circumvent the limitation period.

7. That the appellant reserves the right to add, amend, modify or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

4. We next note that the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion rejecting the assessee’s lower appeal on all these issues reads as under:

“6. Ground no. 2 to 5: These grounds of appeal have been raised against the addition of Rs. 84,91,24,660/-, Rs. 167,95,74,275/-, Rs. 2,13,40,250/- and Rs. 4,26,805/- made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained cash payments, cash receipts, unsecured loan and commission on unsecured loans respectively. I have considered the facts and relevant legal