Reopening of assessments under the Income Tax Act requires corroborative evidence and the opportunity for cross-examination; failure to provide these renders the assessment invalid.

ORDER

PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. :

These three appeals are filed by three different assessees against the respective orders of the learned CIT(A)- 3, Nagpur, relating to assessment year 2015-2016. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that a search was conducted in the premises of Soni Maloo, Talda, Panapliya group of cases and various documents were seized from the residential premises of Shri Pradeep Maloo. On verification of the documents i.e., Sale Deed it is found that Soni Maloo, Talda and Panapaliya had purchased a land for an amount of Rs.70 lakhs but the original sale consideration of the property was for Rs.2,28,50,000/- of which Rs.70,000/- was paid in cheque and balance of Rs.1,58,50,000/- was paid in cash to the assessee viz., Taradevi Babulal Patni and other co-sellers. Accordingly, the assessee viz., Taradevi Babulal Patni had received on-money of Rs.39,62,500/- being 1/4^th share of Rs.1,58,50,000/- which has been accepted by the members of Soni Maloo, Talda and Panapliya Group.

2.1. The case of the assessee viz., Taradevi Babulal Patni was reopened u/sec.147 of the Act. The assessee filed her original return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,72,820/-. In response to the notice u/sec.148, the assessee has filed her revised return of income on 17.07.2021 admitting total income of Rs.4,55,500/-. The Assessing Officer after following the due procedure, completed the assessment u/sec.147 r.w.s.143(3) of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.44,18,000/- as against the returned income of the assessee at Rs.4,55,500/- after making addition of Rs.39,62,500/- u/sec.69A of the Act on account of unexplained money in the case of the assessee viz., Taradevi Babulal Patni [ITA.No.193/NAG./2024] vide order dated 22.03.2022 u/sec.147 of the Act.

2.2. Similar addition of Rs.1,87,01,000/- was made by the Assessing Officer u/sec.69A of the Act on account of unexplained money in the case of Patni Housing Private Limited and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,95,95,030/- as against the returned income of Rs.8,94,030/- for the A.Y. 2015-2016 [ITA.No.194/NAG./ 2024] vide order dated 22.03.2022 passed u/sec.147 of the Act.

2.3. Similarly, in the case of Babulal Roshanlal Patni [ITA.No.196/NAG./2024], the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.39,62,500/- u/sec.69A of the Act on account of unexplained money and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.44,56,200/- as against the returned income of Rs.4,93,700/- for the A.Y. 2015-2016 vide order dated 22.03.2022 passed u/sec.147 of the Act.

3. On being aggrieved by the order(s) of the Assessing Officer, these assessee’s carried the matter in appeals before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of these assessee’s held that issue of notice u/sec.148 of the Act by the Assessing Officer is not abinitio void and the proceedings u/sec.148 are legal and correct. The learned CIT(A) further noted while confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained money u/sec.69A of the Act at Rs.39,62,500/-; Rs.1,87,01,000/- and Rs.39,62,500/- in the cases of Taradevi Babulal Patni, Patni Housing Private Limited and Babulal Roshanlal Patni, respectively, noted that the on- money was paid as is evident from page no.70 and 71 of bundle no.B-1, which are not dumb documents as claimed by the assessee’s. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the order(s) of the Assessing Officer.

4. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned CIT(A), these assessee’s carried the matter in appeals before the Tribunal.

5. During th