The appellate authority's admission of new evidence violated procedural rules without granting the assessing officer a chance to respond.

ORDER

PER BENCH(3:2);

This bunch of five appeals instituted u/s 253(2) of the Act by the appellant Revenue impugns separate orders all dt. 03/03/2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-2, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereinafter] which in turn correspondingly arisen out of separate orders of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by captioned assessing officer [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] all dt. 29/03/2023 in relation to assessment years 2018-19 & 2022-23 [‘AYs’ hereinafter].

2. Since interwoven issue counselled in this bunch of appeals is common & identical in nature, on rival party’s request and for the sake of brevity, they are heard together for being disposed off by a common & consolidated order. For adjudication ITA No 175/PAN/2025 (Sr-1) is taken as lead case, resultantly the adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs of this order in lead case (supra), shall mutatis mutandis apply to all the remaining captioned appeals (Sr-2 to 5) and be read & treated accordingly.

3. Pithily stated facts of the lead case are that;

3.1 The assessee partnership firm engaged in the trading business of gold & silver jewellery & bullion etc. For AY 2018- 19 the assessee filed its return of income [‘ITR’ hereinafter] on 26/10/2018 declaring total income of 1,54,36,889/- which was ₹ summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act.

3.2 On Potdar Group of cases a search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act on 08/11/2021 was carried out and alongside a survey action u/s 133A of the Act on connected group cases was also carried on 09/11/2021. Pursuant to former action and incriminating material found & seized therein and statement recorded during therefore, the case of the assessee was subjected to reassessment by issue of notice u/s 148 and consequential assessment u/s 147 of the Act completed wherein a solitary addition of 30% of total payments made to karigars (artisan labours) during the year was made.

3.3 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 4.9 to 4.12 which reads as under;

4.9 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs CIT 30 ITR 181 held as under;

“ ITA No.1375 to 1378/Bang/2016 "In the instant case a mere calculation of the nature indulged in by the ITO or the AAC was not enough, without any further scrutiny, to dislodge the position taken up by the assessee, supported as it was, by the entries in the cash book and the affidavits put in by the assessee before the AAC”

Thus, in law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness called by one's opponent. Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides that a witness will be first examined in chief, and then if the adverse party deems fit, cross-examined and if the party calling him so desires, be re- examined. Therefore, the corollary to the rule of fairness and justness is that statement of those witnesses referred to relied upon by the Revenue should be subjected to be cross-examined by the assessee to ascertain the truth or veracity of the statement. Thus, we can say that one of the corollaries of the rule of hearing is the rule regarding the cross-examination of witnesses.

Likewise, oral argument, the legitimacy of inferences to be drawn from facts and circumstances on records etc. are subsidiary to the rule of hearing. The opportunity to afford cross-examination is the sine qua non of due process of taking evidences and no adverse inference can be drawn against a party unless the par