ORDER

PER BENCH:

These Revenue’s four appeals and assessee’s as many cross objections therein i.e. ITA No. 266 to 269/Del/2026 along with C.O. No. 77 to 80/Del/2026; for assessment years A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2016-17, arise against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi- 31’s order all dated 23.09.2025 passed in DINs & Orders Nos. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081063559(1), ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081064168(1), ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081062262(1) & ITBA/APL/S/ 250/2025-26/1081063200(1), involving proceedings under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3), 153C r.w.s 143(3), 153C r.w.s. 143(3) & 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’; assessment year wise; respectively.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

2. For the reasons stated in the Revenue’s condonation averments, delay of 12 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3. We notice at the outset that there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned assessments framed by the learned Assessing Officer in the assessee’s hands in all these four assessment orders. Both the parties at this stage invite our attention to the learned CIT(A) detailed discussion in “lead” assessment year 2013-14 deciding the above legal issue in the assessee’s favour; reading as under:

“11. Through Grounds No. 6 to 7, the appellant has contested the addition of Rs. 57,63,888/- made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act on account of commission income. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Pankaj Kumar Group on 05/08/2015. Based on this search satisfaction u/s 153C was recorded on 13/10/2017 in the case of the appellant. According to the AO the appellant was engaged in the activities of providing bogus long term capital gain. The AO has referred to SEBI Order No. WTM/RKA/ISD/54/2015 dated 29/06/2015 in the case of 4 companies, namely, (i) ECO Friendly Food Processing Park Ltd. (ECO), (ii) Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing Limited (Esteem), (iii) Channel Nine Entertainment Limited (CNE), and (iv) HPC Biosciences Limited (HPC). According the AO these are the penny stock companies whose share price are manipulated for providing bogus long term capital gain/losses. Besides these 4 companies the AO has also mentioned 2 other companies namely (i) Alps Motors and Finance Ltd. and (ii) Goldline International Finvest Ltd. The AO retrieved the trade data of these scrips from Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) to calculate the long term capital gain. The turnover of long-term capital gain based upon the data of BSE calculated by the AO for the year under consideration was Rs. 14,40,97,200/- . The AO estimated the commission income @ 8% i.e., Rs. 11527776/-. 50% of this amount i.e., 57,63,888/- has been added as the income of the appellant while the remaining 50% of amount of Rs. 57,63,888/- has been allocated by the AO to some other person namely Shri B K Sabharwal. In these proceedings the appellant has submitted that the addition made by the AO is erroneous. The detailed contention of the appellant has been reproduced in the earlier part of this order.

12. In view of the above, I find that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Pankaj Kumar Group on 05/08/2015. Based on this search satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act was recorded on 13/10/2017 in the case of the appellant. As on date of issue of recording of satisfaction u/s 153C (13/10/2017) no assessment proceedings were pending for the year under consideration and the AO was not justified in making the addition without there being any incriminating material being found in search. The AO has not pointed to any incriminating seized material to justify the addition made by him. The AO has taken trade data from Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and applied estimated commission rate. Neit