अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, ‘बी’ Ûयायपीठ, चÛे न IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:302)ी जॉज (cid:91) जॉज (cid:91) के, उपाÚय¢ एवं (cid:302)ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदèय के सम¢

BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 548 to 552/CHNY/2024 िनधा(cid:6981)रण वष(cid:6981)/Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner of

76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 PAN: AHOPM-2335-H Coimbatore.

(अपीलाथ(cid:7278)/Appellant) ((cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:7278) क(cid:7409) ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278) क(cid:7409) ओर से/Respondent by : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT सुनवाई क(cid:7409) तारीख/Date of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क(cid:7409) तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH:

These five appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against five separate orders of CIT(A), Chennai-20, all dated 16.02.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are

2014-15 to 2018-19.

2. The common issue is raised in these appeals, hence, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. Identical grounds are raised except for variation in figures.

The ground relating to assessment year 2018-19 is reproduced below:-

“1. The order of the CIT(Appeals) 20, Chennai dated 16.02.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1061041843(1) for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case.

2. The CIT(Appeals) 20, Chennai erred in confirming the validity of framing of the assessment under Section 153A of the Act in the absence of seized material during the course of the search made in hands of the appellant and further erred in confirming the addition made in the search assessment order passed in terms of Section 153A of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification.

3. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that having assessed the appellant in terms of Section 153A of the Act based on the incriminating materials seized during the search in the premises of Mr. O. Arumugasamy and others in contra distinction to the search in the premises of the appellant herein, wherein no incriminating materials were seized for the purpose of making the disputed addition(s) in the search assessment order(s), the consequential search assessment order passed should be reckoned as bad in law.

4. The CIT(Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that having used the disputed search materials seized in the premises at Mr. O. Arumugasamy and others for making the disputed addition and further having not seized any incriminating material in support of the disputed addition in the hands of the searched person, the assessment completed by making additions not arising from the search conducted in the hands of appellant should be reckoned as bad in law.

5. The CIT(Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case reported in 454 ITR 212 on the scope of jurisdiction on the scope of jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act in proper perceptive and as a consequence ought to have appreciated that the search assessment order under consideration was invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law.

6. The CIT(Appeals) 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the finding rendered with respect to framing of assessment under Section 153A of the Act in the absence of incriminating material in contrary to judicial precedents, thereby vitiating the passing of the appellate order.

7. The CIT(Appeals) 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the findings rendered in para 7.1.3 & 7.1.4 of the impugned order was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law.

8. The C