No addition u/s 69 sustainable merely on uncorroborated third-party search statements/electronic data without specific incriminating material qua assessee, opportunity of cross-examination, or breach of natural justice. (28 words)

ORDER

Per Bench:

The captioned appeals are filed by two different assessees, challenging the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short] passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short)2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. As the facts are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No.8791/M/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 as the lead case.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in lave the Ed. CIT(A) had erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO is passing the impugned assessment order u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act') in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search, making the assessment order illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in making the addition in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search action, as per the grounds contained in the assessment order or otherwise.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in merely relying on the statement of Shri. Imran Ansari, without any cogent evidence on record, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in holding that the appellant has paid cash in the form of on-money on purchase of immovable property, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in making an addition of Rs.8,00,000/-being cash paid on purchase of immovable property by the appellant treating the same as unexplained investment, by invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act, for the reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise.

6. The Appellant craves leaves to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal on or before the hearing.

The appellant prays the Hon'ble Tribunal to delete the additions /disallowances made by the Learned Assessing Officer, which are confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A).”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed her return of income dated 30.09.2017 declaring total income at Rs.11,06,190/-. Pursuant to a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act carried out in the group cases of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. (‘M/s. RHIL’ for short) the Learned Assessing Officer (‘AO’ for short) issued notice u/s 153C of the Act dated 29.09.2022 which was duly issued and served upon the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed her return of income declaring total income at Rs.11,06,190/-. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) were also issued and served upon the assessee. The Ld. AO observed that during the search and seizure action the promotor and director of M/s. RHIL Shri Tabresh Shaikh and a key employee of the said group Shri Imran Ansari had stated that in its project by name “Platinum Mall” various parties including the assessee had purchased the shops from M/s. RHIL and paid on money totaling to Rs.151,39,11,026/- which was treated as unaccounted receipt and subsequently offered the same as additional income @ 8% by M/s. RHIL. The assessee being one of the purchasers of shops fro