ORDER

PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

All these three appeals are filed by the different orders of the Ld. CIT(A), Delhi-24 dated 04.06.2025 for the A.Y. 2016-17 to 2018-19.

2. The assessee has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on various legal grounds and also grounds on merits of additions made by the AO.

3. The assessee has raised the following common grounds of appeal in all three assessment years except for the figures :-

“1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order u/s 153C and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying the other mandatory conditions laid down u/s 153C and without recording mandatory satisfaction in accordance with law.

2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made by Ld. AO which was based on dump/loose sheets found from the search of third person and the same is not the part of books of accounts.

3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) ought to have delete the additions made by the Ld. AO, as there is no valid satisfaction note recorded as per the provision of the law.

4. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have set aside the impugned order, as assumption of jurisdiction in passing of the impugned order by the Ld. AO u/s 153C of the Act dated 31.03.2023 is illegal, bad in law as the mandatory statutory notice u/s 143(2) has not been issued.

5. hat having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an additions of Rs.22,000/- by treating it as alleged unaccounted money u/s 69A and that too by recording incorrect facts and finding and in violation of principal of natural justice and without providing the opportunity of cross examination of the alleged deponent.

6. That in any case and in any view of the matter, order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs.22,000/- u/s 69A is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and in any case section 69A is not applicable in the present case.

7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the impugned assessment order passed by the Ld. AO as the same was passed without obtaining valid approval u/s 153D in accordance with law.

8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.”

4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that in so far as ground No.7 is concerned which is in respect of challenging the validity of approval u/s.153D of the Act the said ground of appeal is not pressed. In view of the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee this ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground No.1 of grounds of appeal submitted that assumption of jurisdiction by the AO and framing assessment u/s.153C of the Act is bad in law. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee a satisfaction note dated 15.12.2021 was recorded by the AO and pursuant to such satisfaction note notice u/s.153C of the Act was issued and completed the assessment accordingly. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that since the satisfaction note was recorded on 15.12.2021 the deemed search in the case of the assesse being a person other than the searched person shall be 15.12.2021 and in which case proceeding u/s.153C of the Act could not have been initiated on or after 01.04.2021 in view of sub section (3) of section 153C of the Act. Ld. Counsel submits that since this ground was not raised before the Ld. CIT(A)