MEERA VARSHNEY,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 187/DDN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 May 2026AY 2020-217 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of a 'dumb document' seized from a third party, which did not explicitly mention 'cash' payment. Crucially, the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the person from whom the documents were seized, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was centralized following a search operation on third parties, where documents indicating a cash payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- for land purchase were found. The Assessing Officer made an addition based on these documents, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether an addition can be sustained based on a 'dumb document' seized from a third party without providing an opportunity for cross-examination to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 132,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH: DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Malik, CA &, Ms. Rashi Nagpal
For Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT DR
Hearing: 12.03.2026Pronounced: 15.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.187/DDN/2025 [Assessment Year : 2020-21] Meera Varshney, vs ACIT, 43/1 Sewak Ashram Central Circle, Income Road, Dehradun, Tax Office, Subhash Uttarakhand, 248001 Road, Dehradun PAN-AKNPM1029J Uttarakhand APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Rajan Malik, CA & Ms. Rashi Nagpal Respondent by Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15.05.2026 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 24.07.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-3, Noida [“Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 04.02.2025 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, a search operation conducted u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was carried out in the case of one, Shri Krishna Sharma & Smt. Sheetal Sharma on 02.02.2022. As per AO, during the search, several incrimination documents, loose sheets, digital devices were found and seized at

ITA No. 187/DDN/2025

residential and business premises of Shri Krishna Sharma & Smt. Sheetal Sharma. The case of the assessee was centralized with DCIT(Central Circle), Dehradun vide order dated 10.03.2023 of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act however, assessee has filed to participate in the proceedings. The Ld. A.O. based on the incriminating material found during the search at the residence of Shri Krishna Sharma & Smt. Sheetal Sharma, observed that the assessee i.е., Smt. Sudha Aswal had purchased land part of Khasra no 489GA, measuring 127.73 sq. mtrs., situated at Mauzan Tarla Nagal, Parwadoon, Dehradun from Shri Keshav Soin, and made cash payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- over and above the amount stated in registered Sale Deed. Since, the date of sale deed, detail of land /Khasra no., area and the sale consideration of the said plot as available on the State Government website, exactly matches with the entries in the aforesaid seized documents, therefore, the AO made the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- under Section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, 1961 vide Assessment Order dated 04.02.2025.

3.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 24.07.2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee.

4.

As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

ITA No. 187/DDN/2025

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee addressing on Ground of 5. appeal No. 1 submitted that the authorities below committed error in making/sustaining the addition amounting to Rs. 12,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act relying on the loose sheet of paper which is nothing but ‘dumb document’. Further submitted that there is no mentioning of ‘cash’ payment and the alleged incriminating material being a ‘dumb document’ which was not corroborated with any of the statement or evidence. Further submitted that though the loose paper was not found from the possession of the Assessee, the Revenue has not provided opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, submitted that the addition made by the A.O. which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.

6.

Per contra, the Ld. CIT DR submitted that the Assessee admitted the fact of purchase of property and conveniently denied the ‘cash payment’ for purchase of the said property. Even in the seized document, it is clearly mentioned regarding payment of Rs. 12.00 lakhs apart from payment made through banking channel of Rs. 19.17 lakhs. Further submitted that the seized document clearly establishes the fact of payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- over and above the amount of sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The sole basis for making addition was the

ITA No. 187/DDN/2025

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. The relevant extract of seized documents i.e. Page No. 8 & 9 of Annexure A-2 is reproduced at page 3 of the assessment order.

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. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Gaurav Gupta in ITA No.31/DDN/2025 has deleted the addition by making following observations:-

5.

“The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee addressing on Ground No. 3 and Ground No. 5 submitted that the authorities below committed error in making/sustaining the addition amounting to Rs. 19,00,000/- u/s 69B of the Act relying on the loose sheet of paper which is nothing but ‘dumb document’. Further submitted that there is no mentioning of ‘cash’ payment and the alleged incriminating material being a ‘dumb document’ which was not corroborated with any of the statement or evidence. Further submitted that though the loose paper was not found from the possession of the Assessee, the Revenue has not provided opportunity for cross- examination. Therefore, submitted that the addition made by the

ITA No. 187/DDN/2025

A.O. which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted”.

9.

It is further observed that addition on identical facts on the basis of entry in the same document was also made in the case of Bhagwani Devi vs DCIT where the Co-ordinate Bench of Dehradun Tribunal in ITA No.31/DDN/2025 vide order dated 22.08.2025 has deleted the addition by making following observations in para 8 to 10 of the order: 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 correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which

ITA No. 187/DDN/2025

would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross- examination and make the remarks as mentioned above.” 10. As observed earlier, the seized document has no mention of the payment of cash and there is no corroborative statement recorded from the seized person i.e. Krishna Sharma. The assessment order came to be passed without providing opportunity of cross examination of the said Krishna Sharma, which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra). Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has committed error in upholding the impugned addition. In view of the above, we find no reason to upheld the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), finding merits in the Ground No. 3 & 5 of the Assessee, we allow the same.” 10. As the facts are identical therefore, by respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of Co-ordinate Bench of Dehradun Tribunal where addition was made by placing reliance on the entries found noted on the same document which is also the sole basis for making the addition in the hands of the assessee, the addition made in the case of assessee is hereby, deleted. Ground of appeal No. 1 of the assessee is allowed.

ITA No. 187/DDN/2025

11.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 15.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date-15.05.2026 *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S*

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →