AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM :
These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-25, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 02.02.2026 and dated 19.02.2026 for the Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2019-20 and 2015-16 & 2016-17 in the cases of Tarun Pal Singh Makhni and Punam Makhnai respectively.
At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee pleaded to withdraw the appeal being ITA No.3690/Del/2026 for the AY 2016-17. Accordingly, assessee is allowed to withdraw the appeal and the appeal for AY 2016-17 in the case of Tarun Pal Singh Makhni is dismissed as withdrawn.
Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. We take up the assessee’s appeal being ITA No.3689/Del/2026 for AY 2017-18 in the case of Tarun Pal Singh Makhni as lead case raising following grounds of appeal :-
1.That in the facts and in circumstances of the case the CIT (A) / Assessing officer has erred in issue of notice U/s 153 (C) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and without proper application of judicial mind while recording the reasons to belief Dt: 23rd June 2022 and satisfaction note dated 23rd June 2022 and without recording the reasons on basis of which he has reached to conclusion that the documents or records recovered from third party pertains to the undisclosed income of the assessee.
2.That in the facts and in circumstances of the case the CIT (A) / Assessing officer has erred in issue of notice U/s 153 (C) of the Income Tax Act 1961 based on the Satisfaction Note recorded after considerable delay and beyond the Limitation period as mandated by the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961.
3.That in the facts and in circumstances of the case the CIT (A) / Assessing officer has erred in issue of notice U/s 153 (C) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and consequent show cause notice based on recovery of documents, records etc from the third party which are in nature of Dumb Documents and nothing incriminating against the assessee has been recovered as alleged by the assessing officer.
4.That on facts and in circumstances of the case the notice under Sec 153 (C) and the consequent assessment order is beyond the limitation period of Six years/ Ten Years from Assessment year in which the books are handed over to the Assessing officer of the assessee i.e 23.06.2022 and after 1.04.2021 making the assessment order time barred and Void.
5.That in facts and in circumstance of the case the CIT (A) / Assessing officer has erred in rejecting the request of the Assessee to grant the Right of Cross Examination of the person from whom the papers, records, Documents etc were recovered and based on which the Assessing officer has made additions in hand of the assessee.
6.That in facts and in circumstance of the case the CIT (A) / Assessing officer has erred in not passing the Final Assessment order U/s 153C before the limitation period expired on 31-3-2023 as per the provisions of Income Tax Act for search conducted on 18/10/2019. Hence the present Assessment Order is Void and time barred.
7.That in facts and in circumstance of the case the CIT (A) / Assessing officer/ Approving Authority has erred in not applying its Mind for giving approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act 1961
8.That in facts and in circumstance of the case the CIT (A) / Assessing officer has erred in making an Addition U/s 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961 for Rs.7,04,000/- on account of providing alleged unaccounted cash amount on basis of documents recovered from third party without substantiating and collaborating the same with the records of the assessee as to the nature of the transactions and also testing the authenticity of the electronic records recovered from the third party as per the legal requirement in such matters.
9.That in facts and in circumstance of the case the CIT (A) / Assessing officer has erred in making an Addition U/s 69C for Rs.21,220/- on account of commission amount paid by the assessee based on documents recovered from third party without substantiating and collaborating the same with the records of the assessee.
10.That in facts and in circumstance of the case the CIT (A) / Assessing officer has erred in initiating the penalty proceedings U/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act 1961.”
At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee pressed the legal issues raised vide grounds of appeal that "That the notice issued and the assessment order passed under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer (‘Assessing Officer') are fundamentally flawed, being without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, and passed in violation of the statutory framework governing such proceedings, thereby rendering them legally unsustainable.”
With regard to above ground, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that AO has recorded the reasons to initiate proceedings for issue of notice u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on 15.11.2023. He submitted that no doubt, the original search was conducted on the Alankrit Group on 18.10.2019, however, the AO of the searched person has recorded the satisfaction on 23.06.2022, for the sake of brevity, the satisfaction note is reproduced below :-
Annexure
Satisfaction note for initiating proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961 in the case of Tarun Pal Singh Makhni (PAN:BNVPM9543H)
1.A search and seizure operation was carried out in the Alankit Group of cases on 18.10.2019 subsequently the said group was centralized to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. Accordingly, during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A of Alankit Group, material/documents related to case of Tarun Pal Singh Makhni have been found.
2.Ledgers of Som Prakash have been obtained from laptop of Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta found and seized from the residence of Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta, at 3584/4, Narang Colony, Gali No. 4 Tri Nagar Delhi (Path: F:\SKGR A-32\SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA HP LAPTOP\EXTRACTED DATA\Tally[root].1\Local Disk\ANARKALI\BACKUP\DATA24\DATA24).
There are five ledgers related to Sh. Som Prakash namely
- SOM PRAKASH - A/C NEWWAVE
- SOM PRAKASH
- SOM PRAKASH- NEW A/C
- SOM PRAKASH A/C ALCL
- SOM PRAKASH - OLD A/C
- SOM PRAKASH-I/TAX
3.The bogus profits/loans taken through HB RELAN & CO. against unaccounted cash payments, as calculated from ledger of Sh. Som Prakash are tabulated below.
Name of beneficiary T.V. Nature Amount debited to beneficiary Amount credited to beneficiary Tarun Pal Singh 2016-17 Cash 704000 4.Ledgers named "BUNTY JI" obtained from laptop of Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta found and seized from the residence of Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta, at 3584/4, Narang Colony, Gali No. 4 Tri Nagar Delhi (Path: F:\SKGR A-32\SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA HP LAPTOP\EXTRACTED DATA\Tally[root].1\Local Disk\ANARKALI\BACKUP\DATA24\DATA24) contain details of unaccounted cash transactions made by Sh. Rajbir Singh Makhni, his family members/ other beneficiaries from various paper entities controlled by Sh. AlokKumar Agarwal, the key promoter of Alankit Group.
There are four ledgers with the related name "Bunty"
- BUNTY JI
- BUNTY JI (A/C PARTI FIBRE)
- BuntyJi A/c ParveshJi
- BUNTY JI - A/C DHIRHAM
5.The details of accommodation entries taken by various beneficiaries in lieu of unaccounted cash transactions or otherwise, are as tabulated below:
He submitted that after recording the above satisfaction and on receipt of relevant material from the AO of the searched person, the proceedings were initiated by the AO by issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act and completed the assessment u/s 153C of the Act. He submitted that as per the amended provisions and in specific, he brought to our notice section 153C (3) of the Act which is squarely applicable in this case and he submitted that the AO should have initiated proceedings u/s 148 and not u/s 153C of the Act. The facts are exactly similar to the appeals filed by the assessee for other assessment years as well and he submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Further, ld. AR of the assessee filed the detailed written submissions on this issue, however, the relevant submissions are reproduced below for the sake of brevity :-
“Reference the aforesaid Appeal, we on behalf of the Assessee wish to submit as follows:
1.That in the facts and in circumstances of the case the assessing officer has erred in issue of notice U/s 153 (C) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and without proper application of judicial mind while recording the reasons to belief Dt: 23rd June 2022 and satisfaction note dated 23rd June 2022 and without recording the reasons on basis of which he has reached to conclusion that the documents or records recovered from third party pertains to the undisclosed income of the assessee.
2.That in the facts and in circumstances of the case the assessing officer has erred in issue of notice U/s 153 (C) of the Income Tax Act 1961 based on the Satisfaction Note recorded after considerable delay and beyond the Limitation period as mandated by the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Assessment of income of any other person.
153C. [(1)] [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147. section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,-
(a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, "belongs to; or
(b)any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person] [and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and] for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A]:]
Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to [sub-section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person:]
[Provided further that the Central Government may by rules" made by it and published in the Official Gazette, specify the class or classes of cases in respect of such other person, in which the Assessing Officer shall not be required to issue notice for assessing or reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made [and for the relevant assessment year or years as referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A] except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated.]
(2)xxxxxxxxx
[(3) Nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A on or after the Ist day of April, 2021.]
1. Legal validity of Notice U/s 153 (C) dated 15/11/2022
List of Dates
- Date of Search 18-19/10/2019
- Date of Satisfaction Note: 23/06/2022
- Date of Notice U/s 153C: 15/11/2022
-
- Date of Notice U/s 142(1) 21/09/2023
- Date of Limitation for assessment: 31/03/2023
- Date of Satisfaction note in case of R S Makhni 28/12/2021
- Date of notice U/s 153(C) in case of R S Makhni 28/12/2021
- Date of limitation of assessment of R S Makhni 31/03/2023
- Assessing officer of the Searched person DCIT CC 28 New Delhi
- Assessing officer of the Assessee DCIT CC 28/CC 26 New Delhi
It is pertinent to note here that the Assessee is part of the family of Makhni Family which consists of the following family members: Rajbir Singh Makhni - Father Mrs Punam Makhni - Mother Ms. Tanya Makhni - Sister Tarunpal Singh Makhni - Self
The family of the assessee was part of the Search Proceedings U/s 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 in case of Alok Agarwal and others on 18th and 19th Oct 2019. It is further important to note that no incriminating material or evidence for any income escaping tax was recovered from their premises. As per the provisions of the Sec 153A of the Income Tax Act 1961, the assessee and his family members were to be issued notice U/s 153A of the Income Tax Act 1961 and to assessed as Searched Person and not U/s 153(C) of the Income Tax Act 1961 as “such other person.” The assessment of the assessee and its family members were to be completed by or before 30.09.2021 as per the time limits provided by first limb of clause (ii) of third proviso to sec 153B(1) and as extended in light of TOLA and notification no S.O 996E dated 27-2-2021.
The Assessing officer failed to issue the Notice U/s 153A of the Income Tax Act 1961 to the assessee and its family members and in order to circumvent the lapse on its part to compete the assessment by or before 30.09.2021 the assessing officer than transferred the cases of the family members from his jurisdiction to various other jurisdiction within the Central Scrutiny Charge just for purpose of increasing the time limits for issue of notices under sec 153(C) and consequent assessments thereunder. These transfers were against the principle of centralization of group cases with the same assessing officer in search matter. The intention of the assessing officer is borne out of the fact that the satisfaction notes and assessments orders were issued by different assessing officers within the Central Scrutiny Charge.
| NAME | Date of satisfaction Note | Designation of A.O. | Date of Assessment orders/A.O. |
| Rajbir Singh | 24.12.2021 | DCIT CC 28 | 31-3-2023 DCIT CC-28 |
| Punam Makhni | 04.05.2023 | DCIT CC 28 | 22/05/2024 DCIT CC-15 |
| Tanya Makhni | 24.06.2022 | DCIT CC 28 | 10.02.2024 DCIT CC- 26 |
| Tarunpal Makhni | 20.06.2022 | DCIT CC 28 | 4.11.2022 DCIT CC - 26 |
Hence from the above detail it is apparent that the jurisdiction of cases of the entire family was with DCIT CC -28 New Delhi who was empowered to issue the satisfaction note and consequent Notices under section 153(C) to the respective assesses and conduct the assessment proceedings by or before 30.09.2021. The assessing officer failed to complete the assessment proceedings within the due time period and instead transferred the cases to other Jurisdictions only to enhance the period for completion of assessment proceedings to cover its lapses.
In the case of Vijay Bihari Kandhari V/s Asst. Comm of Income Tax [2025] 181 taxmann.com 21 (Bombay) it was held : Where assessment proceedings under section 153(C) were initiated against petitioner, a third party , on basis of search conducted in case of one ORL, since Assessing officer of searched party as well as the third party ,i.e. petitioner, was one and same , there was no question of transfer of records seized under section 153(C) and thus , this time limit provided by first limb of clause (ii) of third proviso to section 153B (1) shall apply , which was 12 months from the end of the financial year in which search took place.
In the instant case the search took place on 18-19th Oct 2019 i.e F.Y 2019-20 and the 12 month period shall be 31-3-2020. The notice u/s 153(C) was issued on 15/11/2022 and assessment completed on 23/03/2024 much beyond the time limits mandated under section 153B of the Income Tax Act 1961 thus making the Notice U/s 153(C) and assessment order dated 23/03/2024 void and beyond the limitation period and accordingly to be set aside.
The same Principle has been upheld in the case of Parag Rameshbhai Gatani V/s ITO, WARD 2 International Taxation [ R/Special Civil Application no 3734of 2025/3736 of 2025] Gujarat High Court. (Copy of judgement is enclosed. The judgement has also considered Circular no 24 of 2015 [F.NO. 279/MISC/140/2015 /ITJ] which provides the timeline for issue of Notice U.s 153 (C). The Current assessment and issue of notices U/s 153(C) are beyond the limitation period as mentioned in the circular.
2. LIMITATION PERIOD FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153(C)
As per the provisions of Sec 153(C) the date of Initiation of Search is the date when the seized material is handed over to the Assessing officer of the Assessee, which in this case is 23/06/2022 as recorded by the assessing officer in his satisfaction note.
Sub section (3) of section 153(C) that Nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A on or after the Ist day of April, 2021.] This implies that no notice can be issued for a search initiated or seized material handed over to the assessing officer after 1-4-2021. Hence the satisfaction note dated 23/06/2022 and notice U/s 153(C) dated 15/11/2022 are beyond the limitation period and hence not legally valid.
This fact of law has been upheld in the following judgements.
Shanmugasundram Manohran V/s DY.CIT [2025] 181 taxmann.com 786 ( Chennai -Trib)- Where search was conducted on a third party and seized material relating to assessee was handed to the Assessing officer on 08-09-2022, such date was to be treated as date of initiation of search under sec, 153(C), since initiation was after 01-04-2021 , proceedings under sec 153(C) were barred by section 153(C)(3) and the notices issued thereunder were liable to be quashed.
The same principle has been upheld in the case of Harigovind V/s A.C.I.T [2025] 180 taxmann.com 197 (Madras)
Hence on the basis of the facts and judicial rulings the notices U/s 153(C) dated 15/11/2022 are time barred and beyond the limitation period hence are required to be set aside.”
On the other hand, ld DR of the Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below. He also filed written submissions which has been perused by us but not reproduced for the sake of brevity.
Considered the rival submissions and material available on record. We observed that the assessment year 2017-18 under consideration clearly falls outside the scope of application of section 153C of the Act, for the reason that the date of search for the unsearched parties are the date on which the documents were handed over to the Assessing Officer of such other person or from the date on which the satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer of the other person. In the given case, we noticed that the original search was conducted in Alankrit Group on 18.10.2019. The proceedings were initiated based on the material found in the above search in the case of the assessee by recording the satisfaction only on 23.06.2022. Since the satisfaction was recorded subsequently, as held in the case of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd. (2024) 161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi) that the searched AY for the unsearched person would be the date of handing over of the searched material for recording of satisfaction, that being the case, the year of search in the present case of the assessee would be AY 2022-23 of amended search proceedings would apply. The facts in the present case is exactly similar to the facts in the case of coordinate Bench in Lekh Raj vs. DCIT (2026) 187 taxmann.om 1104 (Delhi-Trib.) and the coordinate Bench held as under :-
“7.We have heard submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. We have also considered the decision on which ld. Counsel for the assessee has vehemently placed reliance to buttress her arguments. The assessee in appeal has assailed validity of the assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis consequent to search in the case of Navin Mahipal Group on 16.09.2019. The satisfaction note in case of the assessee was drawn by the AO on 28.09.2021. As per the first proviso to section 153C(1), the date of search in the case of person other than the searched person shall be the date on which books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person are received by the AO of other person. Thus, in the case of a person other than the searched person, the relevant date would be the date on which relevant documents or seized material is received by the AO of the person other than the searched person. The CIT(A) in Para 14 of the impugned order has recorded that:
“it does not emanate from record as to when the seized material was handed over to AO, it is seen that the case of the appellant was centralised u/s 127 of the Act from Faridabad to New Delhi on 21.01.2021. Therefore, the date 21.01.2021 may be taken as the date on which the material was handed over to the AO, that is to say, that the material was handed over to the AO in F.Y. 2020-21.” We are of the considered view that in absence of specific date of handing over the seized material to AO of the assessee, the date of issue of order u/s 127 of the Act has been wrongly assumed by the CIT(A) as the date on which seized material was received by the AO of assessee. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare(P.) Ltd (supra) has held that where the date of handing over of documents is not available, date of issuance of satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer u/s 153C of the Act would be pertinent for the purpose of first proviso to section 153C of the Act. In the present case, the AO had recorded satisfaction on 28.09.2021. Since, the date of handing over of seized material is not emanating from the records, the date of recording of satisfaction i.e., 28.09.2021 shall be considered as the date of receiving seized material by the AO of the assessee.
8.Section 153C was amended by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021 whereby sub-section(3) was inserted. The relevant subsection is reproduced hereinbelow:
“(3)Nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A on or after the 1st day of April, 2021.”
By virtue of above amendment to section 153C, no assessment u/s 153C can be made in the case of other person under section 153C of the Act if the date of search falls beyond 01.04.2021. As a corollary, any notice issued for making assessment u/s 153C of the Act in the case of a non-searched person after 01.04.2021 would be non est.
9.Thus, applying the amended provisions of section 153C of the Act and the law explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare(P.) Ltd. (supra), to facts of the instant case, we find that the notice u/s 153C of the Act issued by the AO to assessee and thereafter, assessment order passed u/s 153C is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed on the ground of jurisdiction. We hold accordingly.
10.In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
Similarly in ITA No.111/Del/2026 for AY 2017-18 order dated 24.06.2026 in the case of M/s. Shivdham Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., the coordinate Bench, wherein the Accountant Member is also the party to it, held as under :-
“19.Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. The assessee in appeal has assailed validity of the assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis consequent to search in the case of Alankit Group on 18.10.2019. The satisfaction note in case of the assessee was drawn by the AO on 11.10.2022. As per the first proviso to section 153C(1), the date of search in the case of person other than the searched person shall be the date on which books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person are received by the AO of other person. Thus, in the case of a person other than the searched person, the relevant date would be the date on which relevant documents or seized material is received by the AO of the person other than the searched person.
20.We are of the considered view that in absence of specific date of handing over the seized material to AO of the assessee, the date of issue of order u/s 127 of the Act has been wrongly assumed by the CIT(A) as the date on which seized material was received by the AO of assessee. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd(supra) has held that where the date of handing over of documents is not available, date of issuance of satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer u/s 153C of the Act would be pertinent for the purpose of first proviso to section 153C of the Act. In the present case, the AO had recorded satisfaction on 11.10.2022. Since, the date of handing over of seized material is not emanating from the records, the date of recording of satisfaction i.e., 11.10.2022 shall be considered as the date of receiving seized material by the AO of the assessee.
21.Section 153C was amended by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021 whereby sub-section(3) was inserted. The relevant sub-section is reproduced hereinbelow:
“(3)Nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A on or after the 1 day of April, 2021.”
22.By virtue of above amendment to section 153C, no assessment u/s 153C can be made in the case of other person under section 153C of the Act if the date of search falls beyond 01.04.2021. As a corollary, any notice issued for making assessment u/s 153C of the Act in the case of a non-searched person after 01.04.2021 would be non-est.
23.Thus, applying the amended provisions of section 153C of the Act and the law explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd.(supra), to the facts of the instant case, we find that the notice u/s 153C of the Act issued by the AO to assessee and thereafter, assessment order passed u/s 153C is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed on the ground of jurisdiction. In this regard, we also find force from the decisions of coordinate Benches in the case of Geetanjali Bhayana (supra) and Lekh Raj (supra). We hold accordingly.”
Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that the reassessment proceeding has to be adopted under substituted provisions i.e. u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 and the relevant provisions of section 153C(3) of the Act apply in the present case. Therefore, we are inclined to allow legal ground raised by the assessee.
The other grounds raised by the assessee are not adjudicated at this stage and the same are kept open.
According, the assessee’s appeal in the case of Tarun Pal Singh Makhni being ITA No.3689/Del/2026 for AY 2017-18 is allowed.
Since the facts in AYs 2018-19 to 2019-20 in the case of Tarun Pal Singh Makhni are exactly similar to Assessment Year 2017-18, our above findings in Assessment Year 2017-18 are applicable mutatis mutandis in Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 in the case of Tarun Pal Singh Makhni. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 in the case of Tarun Pal Singh Makhani are allowed.
Further in the case of Punam Makhani for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17, since the facts in the case of Punam Makhani for 2015-16 and 2016-17 are exactly similar to Assessment Year 2017-18 in the case of Tarun Pal Singh Makhani, our above findings in AY 2017-18 in the case of Tarun Pal Singh Makhani are applicable mutatis mutandis in the case of Punam Makhani for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Punam Makhani for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed.
To sum up : In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed except the appeal being ITA No.3690/Del/2026 for AY 2016-17 in the case of Tarun Pal Singh Makhni is dismissed as withdrawn.