Uncorroborated excel sheet notings and third-party search statements alleging cash payments cannot sustain unexplained investment addition u/s 69 without cross-examination and further evidence proving factum.

ORDER

PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M :

These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the respective final assessment orders dated 12-12-2024 & 20-08-2025 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟), pursuant to the directions issued by the Learned CIT (DRP-1), Mumbai-1, ("Ld.DRP"), pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs.) 2019-20 & 2020-21.

2. Since common issues are involved, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed-off by this consolidated order.

3. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal in ITA No. 832/Mum/2025 (AY. 2019-20) was taken as the lead case for the sake of convenience and discussion, wherein the assessee has taking the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The ld.AO/DRP erred in upholding notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") and the reassessment proceedings for AY 2019-20. The notice under section 148A(b), proceedings under section 148A and notice under section 148 are wholly without jurisdiction and there is no valid 'information' suggesting escapement of income.

2. The ld.AO/DRP erred in upholding notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") and the reassessment proceedings for AY 2019-20 without appreciating that the same were initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer and is contrary to the provisions of section 151A of the Act.

3. The ld.AO/DRP erred in making addition of Rs. 62,00,000 only on the basis of an alleged excel sheet and alleged statement of third party without providing an opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant and in total breach of principles of natural justice.

4. The ld. AO/DRP erred in making addition of Rs. 62,00,000 under section 69 of the Act. The requirements for bringing an amount to tax under section 69 (or any other provision of law) are not at all satisfied in the present case. The additions are wholly without any tangible material qua the present appellant and are completely unsustainable both in law and on facts.

5. The ld.AO/DRP erred in making addition of Rs. 62,00,000 without appreciating that there was no cash payment at all made by the present appellant. An initial booking of a flat was cancelled; and thereafter there was a separate booking and all relevant payments were made entirely through banking channels. There is no undisclosed investment. There is no cogent material with the Revenue to sustain any addition whatsoever in the hands of the Appellant..

6. Each of the above ground be considered as separate from the other grounds.

7. The appellant reserves its right to add to, alter, amend, modify or delete any of the grounds taken in this appeal.”

4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of M/s. City Corporation Ltd., on 15-02-2023 and it was found that the assessee has made payment in cash during the financial year 2018-19 to the extent of Rs. 12 lakhs for flat No. 98-06-02 and Rs. 50 lakhs for flat No. 98-17-02. Since the assessee has not filed the return of income and the amount paid towards purchase of property in cash/on-money amounting to Rs. 62 lakhs remained un-explained and income to that extent has escaped assessment. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act on 20-03-2023, asking the assessee to show cause as to why notice should n