JASPAL KAUR AHLUWALIA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD 6(1) LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M:

This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 22.10.2025 for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: Ground No. 1 Invalid assumption of juri iction u/s 147 That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which are bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed, as the mandatory conditions for assumption of juri iction were not satisfied. Ground No. 2 Reopening based solely on third-party search material That the reassessment has been initiated and sustained solely on the basis of search conducted on a third party (Omaxe Group), without any independent, tangible or incriminating material found or seized from the appellant, and hence the reopening is contrary to settled law. Ground No. 3 Addition u/s 69A without proof of ownership or possession of cash

2 That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.22,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act, without establishing that the appellant was the owner or in possession of any unexplained money, which is a mandatory pre- condition for invoking section 69A. Ground No. 4 Reliance on third-party digital data without legal admissibility That the addition has been sustained merely on the basis of alleged Excel sheets / digital data seized from a third party, without compliance with the requirements of admissibility of electronic evidence, and without establishing authenticity, reliability or direct nexus with the appellant. Ground No. 5 Violation of principles of natural justice – denial of cross-examination That the learned authorities below have grossly erred in law in relying upon statements of third-party persons recorded during search proceedings, without affording the appellant an effective opportunity of cross-examination, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the addition unsustainable. Ground No. 6 Presumption under section 292C wrongly applied That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in applying the presumption under section 292C of the Act against the appellant, even though the documents relied upon were neither found in possession nor control of the appellant, and such presumption cannot be extended to a third party. Ground No. 7 No corroborative evidence of cash payment That the addition has been made and sustained without any corroborative evidence, such as cash withdrawal, bank trail, agreement, receipt, or confirmation from the appellant, and mere mention of name in third-party records cannot justify the impugned addition. Ground No. 8 Mechanical rejection of appellant’s submissions That the learned CIT(A) has erred in summarily rejecting the appellant’s detailed submissions and judicial precedents, without proper appreciation of facts and law, thereby passing a non-speaking and perverse order. Ground No. 9 Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC unjustified That initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) is illegal and premature, and liable to be quashed as the addition itself is unsustainable. Ground No. 10 General That the order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts, and evidence on record and deserves to be set aside, and the addiƟon of Rs.22,00,000/- be deleted in full.

4

Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, we hold that in the present case also, the addition has been made merely on the basis of third-party digital data without any independent corroboration

5 and without establishing direct nexus with the assessee. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the addition of Rs.22,00,000/- made under section 69A of the Act and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable and is liable to be deleted. Since we have deleted the addition on merits, the other legal grounds raised by the assessee challenging reopening etc. are rendered academic and do not require adjudication.

Order pronounced on 22/04/2026 कृणव" सहाय लिलत कुमार (KRINWANT SAHAY) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखा सद"/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "ाियक सद" /JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/