In tax proceedings, additions under section 69 based on corroborative third-party digital evidence are valid if the taxpayer receives adequate notice. Cross-examination is not an absolute right and is not required when the evidence is collateral and the taxpayer is afforded a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations.

आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 01.10.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal CIT(A) 52, Mumbai for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Since all the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly, we shall take ITA No. 9003/Mum/2025, A.Y 2017-18 as lead case and facts narrated therein.

The following grounds are reproduced below:

“1. THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION

1.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order u/s. 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'] framed and passed on 01.10.2025 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [Ld. CIT (A)'] is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions of the Act and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in accordance with the law.

1.2 Without prejudice to the generality of the above, the appellate order so passed is bad in law, illegal and void as the same is arbitrary and perverse.

2. THE ORDER IS OTHERWISE ALSO BAD IN LAW AND ILLEGAL

2.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order so framed is bad in law and illegal, as the same is framed in breach of the principles of Natural Justice.

22 Without prejudice to the generality of the above ground, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in-

(i) not granting proper, sufficient, reasonable and fair opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while passing the appellate order, and

(ii) not granting an opportunity of personal hearing

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE:

3. ASSESSMENT U/S. 153C BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION

3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in initiating the assessment proceeding and framing the assessment of the Appellant by invoking the provisions of section 153C of the Act.

3.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that:

(i) The case of the Appellant did not fall within the parameters laid down by section 153C of the Act, and

(ii) The necessary preconditions for initiating and completion thereof were not complied with.

3.3 It is submitted that on the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the assessment framed u/s. 153C of the Act was bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction.

WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE:

4. ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- AS ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT

4.1 It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in making an addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- /s 69 of the Act as alleged unexplained investment, being alleged cash paid for purchase of shop.

4.2 While doing so, the Ld. CTT(A) erred in -

(i) Basing his action only on surmises, suspicion and conjecture:

(ii) Taking into account irrelevant and extraneous considerations; and

(iii) Ignoring relevant material and considerations as submitted by the Appellant.

4.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such addition was called for.

4.4 Without prejudice to the above, assuming-but not adm