Pranjil Batra vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-03

The instant batch of fifty-two cases involves the twenty assessees/tax-payers herein whose relevant details stand tabulated as follows:-

AY 2019-20 Central Infrabuild order dated 25.03.2025 in Circle-03 Private Appeal No.:10587/2018-19 Limited involving proceedings under section 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Act

We have heard all these assessees as well as the department at length. Case files perused.

Both parties state at the outset that all these fifty-two cases arise from the learned departmental authorities’ section 132 search action dated 17.08.2020 in M/s Pranjil Batra group (appellant in ITA No.3335 & 3336/Del/2005) herein leading to initiation of section 153A proceedings in his case and those under section 153C of the Act in the remaining taxpayer’s cases on protective basis. That being the case, we take up the lead assessee M/s Pranjil Batra, in foregoing cases as the ‘lead’ files for the sake of convenience and brevity.

There does not appear to be much a dispute between the parties that the learned Assessing Officer had framed section 153A r.w.s. 144 assessments in both these lead cases dated 27.10.2022 for the reason that he was in the Enforcement Directorate’s custody at that time; as stated by his learned Counsel during the course of hearing. The assessee then preferred his lower appeal before the CIT(A). He appears to have filed his detailed addition evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules running into 1822 pages; as extracted at pages 14 to 18 of the lower appellate discussion, thereby pleading that the same could not be submitted before the Assessing Officer for the preceding reason of his custody. There is further no quarrel that the same stood fairly admitted in the ld. CIT(A) in lower appellate discussion in para 10.1 at page-18 thereof.

It is in this factual backdrop that the learned CIT-DR representing Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that although the CIT(A) in lower appellate discussion claims to have considered the assessee’s entire additional evidence, the same was never put to the Assessee Officer’s factual verification all along. It is thus an instance of the CIT(A)’s inter alia admitting the assessee’s additional evidence and proceeding to decide the case himself despite the fact that the forum had prima facie filed the same explaining the source of the transactions in question. There is further not dispute coming from the Revenue side that all what the CIT(A) has done is to uphold the assessment findings going against the assessee than having got his additional evidence examined followed by framing points of determination and a detailed adjudication thereupon; as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act.

Faced with the situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice that both these “lead” appeals involving “substantive” assessments framed in the searched assessee i.e. Shri Pranjil Batra’s hands need to be decide at the learned CIT(A) level afresh as per the law. We order accordingly subject to a rider that the assessee/appellant shall plead and prove his case within three effective opportunities at his own risk and responsibility in consequential proceedings. These twin “lead” appeals ITA No.3335 & 3336/Del/2025 succeed for statistical purposes in very terms.

Same order to follow in all other remaining nineteen assessees’ respective fifty cases involving “protective” assessments in order to avoid any mutually contradicting findings and multiplicity of proceedings.

All other legal and factual remaining issues between the parties in the instant batch of appeal are kept open at this stage.

All the assessees’ and the Revenue’s fifty-two appeals and cross objections; as the case may be are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.