In unabated assessment years under the Income Tax Act, 1961, additions under Section 153A cannot be sustained without incriminating material specifically relating to the relevant assessment year, and documents reflecting common trade practices of a broker cannot be treated as evidence of personal income or ownership.

ORDER

PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:

These appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 24.2.2025 & 25.2.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-30), New Delhi (in short “the Ld. CIT(A)) relevant to assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20. Since both the appeals related to same assessee and similar facts involved in these appeals, hence, the appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with the facts related to assessment year 2018-19.

2. The grounds raised in assessment year 2018-19 read as under:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer, despite the fact that the assessment order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is without jurisdiction, void ab initio, illegal and deserved to be quashed.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the AO despite that the proceedings initiated under section 153A against the assessee and the assessment order passed under section 153A/143(3) are in violation of the statutory conditions of the Act and the procedure prescribed under the law and as such the same is bad in the eye of law and liable to be quashed.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the contention of the assessee that the additions made by the AO under Section 153A /143(3) are bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during the course of the search.

5. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the order passed by the AO without obtaining valid prior statutory approval under section 153D of the Act.

(ii) That the purported approval under section 153D of the Act is illegal, bad in law and also without application of mind.

6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,78,00,000/- on account of unaccounted cash received from transfer of immovable property under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act.

(ii) That the aforesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions and explanations along with the evidences brought on records in this regard.

7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the contention of the assessee that the document relied upon by the AO is ‘dumb document’ thus, no addition shall be made on the basis of such document.

8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO despite the fact that the same has been made by the AO without conducting any independent enquiry under section 133(6)/131 during the course of assessment proceedings in this regard.

9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the contention of the assessee that the assessment order under section 153A/143(3) has been passed without there being valid Document Identification Number (DIN) quoted on the body of the assessment order, violating the CBDT Circular