आयकर अपील(cid:9)य अ(cid:10)धकरण, ‘डी’ (cid:14)यायपीठ, चे(cid:14)नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:21)ी मनु कुमार (cid:10)गtiर, (cid:14)या(cid:26)यक सद(cid:29)य एव ं (cid:21)ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:29)य के सम$

BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.:3342 to 3344/Chny/2018 (cid:26)नधा%रण वष % / Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, ACIT, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai.

Chennai – 600 017.

[PAN:AGWPD-2354-E]

(()यथ’/Respondent) (अपीलाथ’/Appellant)

आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.:91 to 94/Chny/2019 (cid:26)नधा%रण वष % / Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 DCIT, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

[PAN:AGWPD-2354-E]

(अपीलाथ’/Appellant) (()यथ’/Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department by : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT.

सुनवाई क5 तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH:

These appeals by assessee and revenue arises out of common order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19. Chennai (in short “the ld.CIT(A)”) on 08.10.2018 in the matter of separate assessment framed by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment years (A.Y.) 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 against the order of Assessing Officer u/s. 144 r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and for the A.Y. 2014-15 u/s.144 of the Act all are dated 31.03.2016.

2. The assessee is in appeal for A.Ys.2011-12 to 2013-14 whereas the revenue is in further appeal for A.Ys.2011-12 to 2014-15. The facts as well as issues are admittedly substantially identical in all the A.Ys. First, we take up cross-appeals filed by the revenue for A.Y.2011-12 which arises out of a common order passed by ld.CIT(A).

3. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 3 days in filing the appeals by the revenue, for which the revenue has given the reasons for delay. After considering the reasons stated by the revenue and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the revenue in not filing appeals on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeals filed by the revenue for adjudication.

4. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: -

1. The order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.

2.1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the assessing officer in assuming jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act 2.2 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that in the absence of incriminating material found during search, the Assessing Officer cannot frame an assessment under section 153A of the Act.

2.3 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction by considering other issues, which were not part of the search proceedings.

24 In any event, the Assessing Officer is precluded from passing assessment order under section 153A of the Act in respect of unabated assessments.

3.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that relinquishment of personal right is a capital receipt not subject to income tax being a personal right of the assessee.

3.2 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in holding that while computing the long-term capital gain on relinquishment of personal right, the cost of acquisition to be treated as Nil

3.3 Without Prejudice, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that there is no cost of acquisition & therefore the same cannot be treated as Nil for the purpose of S.48 rws 49.

3.4 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have apprec