IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN “SMC”

BEFORE SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SH. MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 210/DDN/2025 :Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Kanchan Verma Vs DCIT

151, Kandoli Central Circle Rajpur Road Dehradun, Uttarakhand Dehradun-248001, Uttarakhand (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No. AGYPV1842K Assessee by: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv Revenue by: Sh. Amar Pal Singh, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing: 11.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3[‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], Delhi dated 11/09/2025 for the Assessment Year 2019-

20.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to the search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) carried on 02/02/2022, assessment proceedings has been initiated against the Assessee and an assessment order came to be passed on 14/03/2024 u/s 147 of the Act by making addition of Rs. 4,50,000/- on account of undisclosed investment u/s 69B r.w. Section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 14/03/2024, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 11/09/2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. The Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered in favour of the Assessee vide order dated 22/08/2025 passed in ITA No. 31/DDN/2025 (A.Y 2019-20) in the case of Bhagwani Devi Vs. DCIT, wherein the very same seized document which has been made basis for the addition has been considered by the Tribunal and deleted the addition. Thus, sought for allowing the present Appeal.

3. The Ld. Department's Representative relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal while deciding the Appeal in the case of Bhagwani Devi (supra), considered the very same seized documents and deleted the addition in following manner:-

“7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The sole basis for making addition was the document seized in the premises of Sh. Krishna Sharma and Smt. Sheela Sharma during the search operation conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 02/02/2022, wherein in-front of Assessee’s name two figures have been mentioned. For the sake of ready reference, the seized documents i.e. page No. 74 of Annexure A-4 and Page No. 6 & 7 of Annexure A-2 are reproduced as under:-

8. From the plain reading of the above seized document it was found that there is no mentioning of the word ‘cash’. Admittedly the documents, have been seized from the third party, however, the Assessee has not been provided with opportunity of cross examination. The Assessee has specifically raised a Ground before the Ld. CIT(A) regarding violation of principals of natural justice on the ground that the Assessee has not been given opportunity of cross examination of the said Krishna Sharma. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the opportunity of cross examination is not a compulsory requirement before deciding the matter.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 62 Taxmann.com (S.C) held as under:-

“not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the corre