The absence of incriminating evidence renders additions under income tax laws invalid, emphasizing the necessity for procedural justice and specific findings in penalty proceedings.

ORDER

PER BENCH:

By way of separate appeals filed by the above named assessee, challenges the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)- Jaipur-4 [for short CIT(A) ] all dated 27.08.2024, 12.09.2024 & 10.10.2024 and relates to the assessment years 2015-16, 2012-13, 2013-14 respectively.

2. Since the issue involved in these appeals of the assessee’s are almost identical on grounds and on facts, therefore, were heard together with the agreement of the parties and are being disposed off by this common order.

3. At the outset of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the matter pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 in ITA no. 760/JPR/2025 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven and the facts and circumstances of other cases are identical. Therefore, for the purpose of the present discussions, the case of No. 760/JPR/2025 is taken as a lead case.

4.1 In ITA No. 760/JPR/2025 the assessee has raised following grounds:-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has legally and factually erred in passing an ex-parte impugned order against the appellant without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant and in complete violation to the principal of natural justice. Thus, on this ground alone, impugned order deserves to be set aside and quashed.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. AO has legally and factually erred in making addition of Rs. 6,95,634/- on account of the alleged un-explained expenditure u/s 69C in the purchase of Truck in absence of any incriminating material if any found and seized during the course of search proceedings no valid addition could be made u/s 153C of the act in absence of any incriminating material as held consistently by the judicial authorities. Thus, the addition so made is factually and legally incorrect and thus the same deserve to be deleted.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Id. AO has legally and factually erred in treating the instruments of the property dealings as found and seized during the course of search operations as incriminating material. In fact the instruments so found were duly accounted for and reflected in the books of appellant and were not incriminating material as incorrectly observed by the Id. AO. Thus, the addition of Rs. 6,95,634/ on the basis of such incorrect observations is factually and legally incorrect and the same deserve to be deleted.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. AO has erred in making addition of Rs. 96,832/-u/s 69C of the act on account of the alleged payment of LIC premium from unexplained sources without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective and in absence of any incriminating material found and seized during the course of search operations. The addition so made deserve to be deleted.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. AO has erred in making additions of Rs. 96,832/-u/s 69C of the act on account of the alleged payment of LIC premium from unexplained source without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective and in absence of any incriminating material found and seized during the course of search operations. The addition so made deserves to be deleted.

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the Id. AO has legally and factually erred in issuing penalty notice u/s 271 (1)(C) of the act in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income.

7. The appellant craves the right to add amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing.