In the context of section 153A search assessments, no additions can be made to completed or unabated assessments unless such additions are based on incriminating material specifically unearthed during the search and seizure operation.

आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order 30.07.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2011-12. The following grounds are reproduced below:

“

1. Whether, the Ld.CIT appeal On facts and in law, erred in deleting the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- made under section 68 of 1 the Income-tax Act, 1961, ignoring that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the share applicant

2. whether, On facts and in law, the Ld. CIT appeal erred in holding that no incriminating material was found during search, whereas the statement recorded under section 132 sub section 4 of Shri Sanjay Dugar, a key person of the assessee group, clearly admitted to routing of unaccounted moncy through Jama Kharchi

3. Whether, the Ld. CIT appeal erred in relying upon the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. , without appreciating that unlike in Abhisar Buildwell, the 3 present case contains direct incriminating evidence in the form of sworn statement under section 132 sub section4, corroborated by investigation reports of DGIT, Inv,, Kolkata, establishing the nexus between the assessee and entry providers.

4. Whether, the Ld. CIT appeal while deciding the ground of appeal of the assessee failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer had brought on record the fact that Pulaglia Vayapaar Pvt. Ltd. had no financial capacity to invest in share capital and that the bank trail showed immediate round-tripping, thereby justifying the addition under section 68 of the Act”

2. All the grounds raised by the Revenue are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order.

3. Ld. DR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, relying upon the order of the AO, submitted that a search and seizure action under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted on 09.03.2015, along with search and seizure action in the case of the Gouti Group, and certain evidences were collected conclusively proving that M/s. Mati Chand Gouti Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and its various group concerns had taken bogus share application money, claimed excess money charges, and carried out unaccounted sales of gold jewellery, etc. Consequent to the search, Proceedings under Section 153A of the Act were initiated against the assessee, and it was found that the assessee had taken bogus share application money, which was not genuine, and that the share capital so raised in the books of account was merely an accommodation entry.

4. It was also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that no incriminating material was found during the search and in deleting the addition. According to the Revenue, the facts are contrary to the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), as during the course of the search, the statement of Mr. Sanjay Dugar, a key person of the assessee group, was recorded wherein he clearly admitted to routing unaccounted money through Jama Karchi. It was further submitted that the reliance placed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was not warranted in t