Additions based on third-party search materials and uncorroborated statements invalid without cross-examination opportunity and corroborative evidence linking assessee, violating natural justice principles.

आदेश/ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal 52, Mumbai for the assessment year 2019-20 and 2020-21.

2. Since all the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. We shall take ITA No. 5570/Mum/2025, A.Y 2019-20 lead case and facts narrated therein.

ITA No. 5570/Mum/2025, A.Y 2019-20

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the notice issued and assessment framed under Section 153C of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that provisions of section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act is applicable and not the provisions of section 153C. The issuance of the said notice and consequent assessment farmed u/s.153C is bad in law, illegal, without jurisdiction and void ab-initio;

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order by not appreciating that the Assessing Officer (AO) had failed to provide the opportunity for cross-examination of the third party whose statement and/or material was relied upon to frame the assessment. Under the circumstances and in law, the Assessment Order passed u/s.153 is against the principal of natural justice, bad-in- law and liable to be quashed;

3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,50,000/- u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained investments on account of alleged cash payment towards the purchase of shop premises over and above the agreement value of shop. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition is based solely on the uncorroborated statement of third party/parties and there is notangible material on record. The addition confirmed is bad-in-law and based on surmises, conjectures and unreliable evidences and liable to be deleted;

3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred confirming the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- made in the assessment year 2019-20 and failed to appreciate that no material is brought on record to establish that the alleged payment was made during the year under consideration. The appellant had neither purchased any property nor made any payment to the alleged party during the year under consideration. In the absence of any conclusive documentary evidence linking the date of transaction to the relevant assessment year, the addition is arbitrary, bad in law, and liable to be deleted.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the tax computed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO has not invoked the provisions of station 115BBE of the Act in the Assessment order. However, in computation sheet, the AO has calculated tax invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The application of the special tax rate is invalid and without jurisdiction, and therefore, the tax should have been computed at the normal applicable rates.”

2. At the very outset Ld. AR submitted that the grounds on merits in question raised by the assessee are squarely covered by the series of the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the following cases:

1. ITA Nos. 4742 to 4744/Mum/2025, Pravin K Purohit Vs. DCIT

2. ITA Nos. 5553 to 5555/Mum/2025, Akhraj P Chopra Vs. DCIT

3. ITA Nos. 6363 to 6365/Mum/2025, Bhavana V. Jain Vs. ACIT

4. ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/Mum/2025, Bharat Solanki Vs. DCIT.

5. ITA Nos. 5499 to 5501/Mum/2025, Manish K Seksaria Vs. DCIT

6. ITA Nos. 5552 & 5556/Mum/2025, Mishra Ganesha Ram Vs. DCIT

7. ITA Nos. 6571, 6569 & 6568/Mum/2025, Manish Mali Vs. DCIT

8. ITA Nos. 5488 to 5489