Loading judgment…
Facts
A search and seizure operation led to the issuance of a notice u/s 153C. The AO made additions based on alleged incriminating material recovered from a third party, treating LIC premium payments and property purchase as unexplained expenses/investment. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, confirming the additions.
Held
The Tribunal held that the additions were made without proper appreciation of facts and in disregard of legal principles, as the seized material was not found in the possession of the assessee and no direct nexus was established. The reliance on third-party documents without cogent link rendered the additions arbitrary and unsustainable.
Key Issues
Whether additions made under Section 153C based on third-party documents are valid without establishing a nexus with the assessee, and if such proceedings are procedurally flawed. Also, whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte violates natural justice.
Sections Cited
153C, 69C, 69, 115BBE, 271(1)(c), 139, 132, 143(3), 250, 80C, 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
PER BENCH: Because the assessee was aggrieved from the order of the Ld.CIT(A), Jaipur-4 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act [for short
Since the issue involved in these appeals of the assessee’s are almost identical on grounds and on facts, therefore, were heard together with the agreement of the parties and are being disposed off by this common order.
At the outset of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the matter pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 in may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven and the facts and circumstances of other cases are identical. Therefore, for the purpose of the present discussions, the case of is taken as a lead case.
the assessee has raised following:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in deciding the Appeal of the appellant ex-parte without properly providing opportunity to the appellant for representation of his case. Therefore, the impugned order for being violative of principle of natural justice, deserves to be set aside and quashed.
2. On the fats and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO has factually and legally erred in initiating the proceeding u/s 153C of the Act without jurisdiction and without recording proper satisfaction note regarding incriminating material relied upon. Thus, the proceedings so initiated u/s 153C of the Act are bad in law and deserve to be quashed summarily.
1303/JPR/2024 Anshul Jain and Ors., Tonk 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO has factually and legally erred in treating Rs.61,601/- on account of payment of LIC policy as unexplained expenses u/s 69C of the Act and making addition of such amount to the total income of the appellant, ignoring the explanation offered in this regard during the course of assessment proceedings and also without appreciating the facts of the case that it is a case of no-accounts. Thus, the addition so made deserve to be deleted summarily.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO has factually and legally erred in treating Rs.6,00,000/- on account of payment made for purchase of property, as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and making addition of such amount to the total income of the appellant and also charging this amount to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act, ignoring the explanation offered in this regard during the course of assessment proceedings and also without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective. Thus, the addition so made deserve to be deleted summarily.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has legally and factually erred upholding the action of the Ld.AO of initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, against the appellant in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income.
6. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing.”
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in deciding the Appeal of the appellant ex-parte without properly providing opportunity to the appellant for representation of his case. Therefore, the impugned order for being violative of principle of natural justice, deserves to be set aside and quashed.
2. On the fats and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO has factually and legally erred in initiating the proceeding u/s 153C of the Act without jurisdiction and without recording proper satisfaction note regarding incriminating material relied upon. Thus, the proceedings so initiated u/s 153C of the Act are bad in law and deserve to be quashed summarily.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO has factually and legally erred in treating Rs.57,234/- on account of payment of LIC policy as unexplained expenses u/s 69C of the Act and making addition of such amount to the total income of the appellant, ignoring the explanation offered in this regard during the course of assessment proceedings and also without appreciating the facts of the case that it is a case of no-accounts. Thus, the addition so made deserve to be deleted summarily.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO has factually and legally erred in treating Rs.2,70,000/- on account of payment made for purchase of property, as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and making addition of such amount to the total income of the appellant and also charging this amount to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act, ignoring the explanation offered in this regard during the course of assessment proceedings and also without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective. Thus, the addition so made deserve to be deleted summarily.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has legally and factually erred upholding the action of the Ld.AO of initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, against the appellant in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income.
6. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the founds on or before the hearing.” the assessee has raised following:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), has grossly erred in deciding the appeal of the Appellant ex-parte without properly providing opportunity to the appellant for representation of his case. Therefore, impugned order for being violative to principle of natural justice deserved to be set aside and quashed.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has factually and legally erred in initiating the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act without jurisdiction and without recording proper satisfaction note regarding incriminating material relied upon. Thus, the proceedings so initiated u/s 153C of the Act are in bad in law and deserve to quashed summarily.
1303/JPR/2024 Anshul Jain and Ors., Tonk 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. AO had factually and legally erred in treating Rs. 61,601/- on account of payment of LIC policy as unexplained expenses u/s 69C of Act and making addition of such amount to the total income of the appellant ignoring the explanation offered in this regard during the course of assessment proceedings and also without appreciating the facts of the case that it is a case of no accounts. Thus, the addition so made deserve to be deleted summarily.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has factually and legally erred in treating Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of payment for purchases as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and making addition of such amount to the total income of the appellant and also charging this amount to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act ignoring the explanation offered in this regard during the course of assessment proceedings and also without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective. Thus, the addition so made deserve to be deleted summarily.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has legally and factually erred in upholding the action of ld. AO of initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the appellant in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income.
6. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing.”
Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee is an individual and filed his return for AY 2015-16 u/s 139 on 23.10.2015 disclosing an income of Rs.2,63,496/-. A search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 10.12.2015, at the various premises of R.T. Group (Trilok Jain, Rajesh Jain & others) of Tonk. During the course of search, certain loose papers pertaining/belonging to the assessee were alleged to be found, which along with satisfaction note were forwarded by DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur, to the ITO-Tonk (the AO), which were received by him on 04.04.2018. The AO issued notice u/s 153C on 20.09.2019, in response 1303/JPR/2024 Anshul Jain and Ors., Tonk to which the assessee filed ITR on 08.10.2019, disclosing an income of Rs.2,01,900/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, were inventorized as Exhibit-3 of Annexure AS (Page 22A to 28) and Exhibit 38 of Annexure AS (Page 115 to 121) The former contained a list of premiums paid against LIC policies in the names of different members of the family for different years, while the latter was a sale deed of a property purchased by the assessee. The amount mentioned against the name of the assessee in the premium paid list was Rs.61,601/- while the sale deed showed Rs.6,00,000/- to have been paid as Sale consideration. The AO added both these amounts to the income of the assessee u/s 69C and u/s 69 respectively. Assessment was finally completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C assessing the income at Rs.8,63,500/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur-4, who dismissed the appeal ex-parte and confirmed the additions made by the AO, stating that the appellant could not controvert the findings given by the AO on merits of the issue.
Now the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. While pleading on behalf of the assessee, the ld. AR has made the following ground wise submissions:-
1303/JPR/2024 Anshul Jain and Ors., Tonk “The appellant respectfully submits the following facts in support of the grounds of appeal raised against the order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Jaipur, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), arising from the assessment order dated 18.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act.
1. The appellant is an individual engaged in job work activities, who filed his original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 23.10.2015 declaring a total income of ₹2,63,496/-.
2. A search and seizure operation was conducted on 10.12.2015 at the premises of the RT Group, of which the appellant is not a member. Pursuant to this, a notice under section 153C was issued to the appellant on 20.09.2019, and in response, a return was filed on 08.10.2019 declaring income of ₹2,01,900/- after claiming deduction under section 80C.
3. The assessment was completed on 18.12.2019 determining total income at ₹8,63,500/-, making additions under sections 69 i.e., unexplained investment of property amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/- and 69C i.e., unexplained expenses of LIC Premium and initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).
4. That the impugned additions have been made by the Learned Assessing Officer solely on the basis of certain alleged incriminating material and/or loose sheets purportedly recovered during the course of search and seizure operations conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of a third party. It is respectfully submitted that such material was neither found in the possession nor under the control of the appellant at any point in time. The appellant was not subjected to any search or requisition proceedings under Section 132 or 132A, respectively, and no incriminating evidence directly relatable to the appellant has been brought on record. Consequently, the reliance placed by the Ld. AO on third-party documents, without establishing any cogent nexus or corroborative link with the appellant, renders the additions arbitrary, unsustainable in law, and in clear violation of the settled principles governing assessment under Section 153C/147/143(3) of the Act, as the case may be.
5. The appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) against the order dated 18.12.2019, whereby, the Ld. CIT(A) vide the order dated 27.08.2024 has confirmed alleged additions amounting to Rs. 6,61,601/-, which deserves to be set aside on the following grounds raised hereinbelow. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS In elaboration to and in support of the Grounds of Appeal already taken, detailed submission (groundwise) is made as under:
GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1: ORDER DATED 27.08.2024 HAS BEEN EX-PARTE ORDER:
1303/JPR/2024 Anshul Jain and Ors., Tonk That, the ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal of the appellant ex-parte without even affording reasonable opportunity of heard to the appellant which amounts to violation of principal of natural justice. Therefore, on this ground alone, the Order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A) deserve to set aside and quashed. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2: Ground No. 2: Invalidity of Proceedings under Section 153C The appellant respectfully submits that the initiation and continuation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are vitiated by procedural irregularities. The proceedings are, therefore, liable to be quashed ab initio. To begin with, the additions made by the Learned Assessing Officer are based solely on certain documents described as incriminating material and/or loose papers, which were allegedly recovered during the course of search and seizure proceedings conducted under Section 132 of the Act in the case of a third party. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is not the person in respect of whom the search was conducted. The said documents were neither found in the possession nor under the control of the appellant, and no search or requisition proceedings were initiated against the appellant under Sections 132 or 132A. As per the express mandate of Section 153C, the Assessing Officer of the searched person must record a satisfaction note to the effect that (a) the documents or assets seized during the search belong to a person other than the searched person, and (b) such documents or assets have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person. In the present case, there is no cogent or conclusive finding in the assessment order or any accompanying record to establish that the seized documents “belong to” the appellant. The use of vague expressions such as “relating to” or “pertaining to” is legally insufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold under Section 153C, as held in numerous judicial precedents. Further, the satisfaction note, which forms the very foundation for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C, has not been furnished to the appellant despite specific and repeated requests.. The non-supply of the satisfaction note deprives the appellant of the opportunity to challenge the jurisdictional assumption and violates the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the entire proceedings are rendered void and without legal sanction. The assessment order also refers to certain loose sheets and documents allegedly relating to insurance premium payments and property transactions. However, these documents were not found in the possession or control of the appellant. No independent verification or enquiry was conducted to establish their authenticity or nexus with the appellant’s income. The reliance placed on such unverified and extraneous material is wholly unjustified and contrary to law.
1303/JPR/2024 Anshul Jain and Ors., Tonk Significantly, and without prejudice to the above submissions, it is submitted that the transactions referred to in the so-called incriminating documents have already been duly recorded in the books of account of the appellant. These entries are also reflected in the audited financial statements, including the balance sheet, which has been reproduced before the Ld. AO. The satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer, which forms the basis of the proceedings under Section 153C, merely reiterates the existence of these documents without appreciating that the underlying transactions are already disclosed and accounted for. In such circumstances, where the alleged incriminating material is already part of the regular books of account, no addition can be made on that basis, rendering the satisfaction note illegal perse. Furthermore, the appellant has filed a revised return of income during the course of the assessment proceedings, wherein the true and correct income has been disclosed. The revised return incorporates all relevant financial information, and no further additions are warranted on the basis of unverified and third-party material. In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C are without jurisdiction, procedurally flawed, and violative of the principles of natural justice. The assessment order passed pursuant to such invalid proceedings deserves to be quashed in limine. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3: Ground No. 3: Erroneous Addition of ₹61,601/- under Section 69C on Account of LIC Premium The appellant respectfully submits that the addition of ₹61,601/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of payment of LIC premium is both factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. The said addition has been made without proper appreciation of the facts on record and in disregard of the statutory provisions governing unexplained expenditure. To begin with, the impugned expenditure towards LIC premium was made entirely out of the appellant’s regular and disclosed sources of income. The payment is duly reflected in the appellant’s books of account and financial statements. The transaction is transparent, traceable, and supported by documentary evidence, including premium receipts. In such circumstances, the expenditure cannot be characterized as unexplained or unaccounted, and the invocation of Section 69C is wholly misplaced. It is further submitted that although the appellant inadvertently omitted to claim the deduction under Section 80C for the said LIC premium in the original return of income, the same was correctly claimed in the return filed in response to the notice issued under Section 153C. The mere omission to claim a deduction in the original return does not, by itself, render the source of the expenditure suspicious or unexplained. The revised claim under Section 80C is valid in law and is supported by 1303/JPR/2024 Anshul Jain and Ors., Tonk all requisite documentation. The Assessing Officer has erred in treating the expenditure as unexplained merely because the deduction was not claimed earlier. The return filed under Section 153C is a statutory return and is required to be assessed on its own merits. There is no legal embargo on claiming a deduction in such return, provided the claim is genuine and substantiated. In the present case, the appellant has furnished all necessary evidence in support of the LIC premium payment, and the deduction under Section 80C has been claimed in accordance with law. The rejection of the claim solely on the ground that it was made in the return filed under Section 153C is arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the Act. Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing Officer to treat any unexplained expenditure incurred by an assessee as deemed income for the relevant financial year, provided certain essential conditions are satisfied. The statutory ingredients for invoking Section 69C are: (i) the assessee must have incurred an expenditure during the relevant financial year; (ii) the assessee must either fail to offer an explanation regarding the source of such expenditure or offer an explanation which, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, is not satisfactory; and (iii) the Assessing Officer must record a finding to that effect. Additionally, the proviso to Section 69C expressly bars the allowance of such unexplained expenditure as a deduction under any head of income. In the absence of these cumulative conditions— particularly where the source of expenditure is duly explained, verifiable, and supported by documentary evidence—the invocation of Section 69C is legally impermissible. Mere suspicion or conjecture, without a definitive finding of unexplained or unaccounted expenditure, cannot justify the application of this deeming provision. Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been produced below for your kind reference: 69C. Unexplained expenditure, etc. — Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion of the 1[Assessing Officer], satisfactory, the amount covered by such expenditure or part thereof, as the case may be, may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year: [Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, such unexplained expenditure which is deemed to be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income. Moreover, Section 69C can be invoked only where the Assessing Officer records a finding that the expenditure has been incurred and that the source of such expenditure is not explained or is not satisfactorily explained. In the present case, there is no such finding. On the contrary, the source of the LIC premium payment is 1303/JPR/2024 Anshul Jain and Ors., Tonk fully explained and is traceable to the appellant’s balance sheet. The addition under Section 69C, in the absence of any evidence of expenditure from undisclosed income, is legally untenable and deserves to be deleted. It is also pertinent to note that the LIC premium payment has already been duly recorded in the appellant’s regular books of account. Once an expenditure is accounted for in the books and supported by verifiable evidence, it cannot be treated as unexplained merely because a deduction was not claimed earlier. The settled legal position is that entries recorded in the books of account maintained in the regular course of business carry a presumption of correctness unless disproved by cogent evidence. In the present case, no such contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer. Reliance is placed upon the following judgements: Income Tax Officer v. Growel Energy Co. Ltd. (ITA No. 338/Mum/2011) The Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai has held that the conditions precedent for invoking provisions of section 69C are absent in this case, that the expenditure has been explained by adducing evidence and other relevant material and hence it was not open to the AO to disallow the said expenditure or to treat the same as deemed income under s. 69C of the I.T. Act. When the books of account have been maintained and expenditure recorded with full details and supported by vouchers, then no addition can be made under S. 69C vide CIT Vs. Pratap Singh Amar Singh (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Rajasthan). Under the circumstances, the addition made under s. 69C cannot be sustained and is hereby deleted. PCIT v. Param Dairy Ltd. (ITA 50/2022) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the total purchases including Milk Tanki purchases have been debited to the profit and loss account and the entire source of purchases are duly recorded in the books of account thus source of such purchase/expenditure stands established as having been incurred out of the funds shown in the books of account. ITAT further held that therefore at the threshold, addition under Section 69C cannot be resorted to as the same has been recorded in the books of account. In light of the same, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the addition of ₹61,601/- made under Section 69C on account of LIC premium be deleted in full. The expenditure is fully explained, duly recorded, and supported by documentary evidence. The addition is devoid of merit, contrary to law, and deserves to be quashed. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4:
1303/JPR/2024 Anshul Jain and Ors., Tonk Ground No. 4: Erroneous Addition of ₹6,00,000/- as Unexplained Investment under Section 69 The appellant respectfully submits that the addition of ₹6,00,000/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of an alleged unexplained investment in immovable property is factually misconceived, legally untenable, and devoid of any evidentiary foundation. The addition has been made without proper appreciation of the facts and in disregard of the legal principles governing unexplained investments under the Act. To begin with, the investment in question has been duly disclosed by the appellant and is clearly reflected in the balance sheet prepared for the relevant assessment year. While it is true that the balance sheet may not form part of audited books of account, it nonetheless constitutes a contemporaneous and credible record of the appellant’s financial position. The mere fact that the balance sheet is unaudited does not render it inadmissible or self-serving, particularly in the absence of any contrary evidence brought on record by the Department. The said investment was made from accumulated personal savings and financial assistance received from family members—an accepted and prevalent practice in Indian households, especially among the middle class. The explanation offered is both plausible and supported by the appellant’s financial disclosures. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer has failed to bring on record any material evidence to disprove the appellant’s explanation regarding the source of the investment. The rejection of the explanation on the basis of vague references to “human probabilities” or generalized behavioral assumptions about family members is arbitrary and contrary to settled legal principles. It is a well-established proposition in law that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof. The AO’s reliance on conjecture and assumptions, in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, renders the addition unsustainable in law. It is also pertinent to note that the assessment order does not establish any direct or even indirect nexus between the seized documents and the alleged unexplained investment of ₹6,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer has not demonstrated how the seized material, if any, pertains to the appellant or how it evidences the use of unaccounted income for the said investment. In the absence of such linkage, the invocation of Section 69 is legally untenable. The addition appears to be based on a presumption rather than on any concrete material linking the investment to undisclosed income. For any income to be brought to tax under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, certain foundational conditions must be satisfied. Firstly, it must be established that the assessee has made an investment during the relevant financial year immediately preceding the assessment year in question. Secondly, such investment 1303/JPR/2024 Anshul Jain and Ors., Tonk should not be recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by the assessee for any source of income. Thirdly, the assessee must either fail to offer an explanation regarding the nature and source of the investment, or the explanation furnished must be found unsatisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer. In the absence of these cumulative conditions, the invocation of Section 69 is not legally tenable. Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been reproduced below for your kind reference: 69. Unexplained investments.— Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year. The balance sheet prepared by the appellant, which clearly records the investment in question, constitutes a valid piece of evidence and reflects the appellant’s intention to disclose the transaction. The AO’s blanket rejection of the balance sheet as “self-serving” is unjustified, particularly when no effort was made to verify its contents or to disprove the entries therein. The only documentary evidence available on record—the balance sheet—has not been considered or discussed in the assessment order. This omission reflects a non-application of mind and amounts to procedural impropriety, undermining the validity of the assessment. Lastly, it is submitted that under Section 69, the burden lies on the Revenue to establish that the investment was made from income not disclosed by the assessee. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has not discharged this burden. There is no finding, either direct or inferential, that the investment emanated from undisclosed income. The addition is based purely on conjecture and surmise, without any tangible or corroborative material to support the conclusion drawn. In the absence of any adverse material or contradiction, the appellant’s explanation ought to have been accepted. Reliance is placed upon the following judgements: Chandra Mohan Badaya Vs. DCIT, Central Circle - MANU/IJ/0018/2025 The Hon’ble Bench of ITAT, Jaipur, has held that the income against which the assessee made an investment is duly recorded in the books of accounts which were not disputed and therefore, disputing the investment merely on the grounds that the assessee has deposited cash into the bank account as the immediate source of making the 1303/JPR/2024 Anshul Jain and Ors., Tonk investment. If the revenue really considered the income as unexplained that they could have made the addition as unexplained credit but once the credit is not considered as unexplained the investment so made from the entry passed in the books of account cannot be added u/s. 69 as unexplained investment In light of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the addition of ₹6,00,000/- made under Section 69 of the Act be deleted in full. The investment stands duly explained, is supported by documentary evidence, and the Revenue has failed to establish any contrary facts or material. The addition is, therefore, liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 5: Ground No. 5: Invalid Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) The appellant respectfully submits that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is legally untenable and vitiated by non-application of mind as well as failure to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the law. It is a settled principle that for valid initiation of penalty under this provision, the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether the charge pertains to “concealment of income” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” In the present case, the assessment order is conspicuously silent on this fundamental aspect, thereby depriving the appellant of a fair opportunity to respond to the precise allegation. The absence of a specific charge renders the initiation vague and violative of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the assessment order contains only a mechanical and templated statement that “penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are initiated,” without any discussion or recording of satisfaction as to why such proceedings are warranted. The law mandates that the Assessing Officer must arrive at a conscious and reasoned satisfaction, based on the findings in the assessment order, before invoking penalty provisions. Penalty proceedings are independent and quasi-criminal in nature, and cannot be initiated as a matter of routine or formality. In the present case, the absence of any such satisfaction or justification in the assessment order renders the initiation of penalty proceedings invalid in law. Without prejudice to the above, the appellant reserves the right to contest the penalty proceedings on merits if and when a penalty order is passed. However, it is submitted that the very initiation of penalty proceedings in the present case is procedurally flawed and legally unsustainable, and therefore deserves to be quashed ab initio. Reliance is placed upon the following Judgements: M/s. Aagam Shares & Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT (/I.T.A. No. 2082/Ahd/2018) (ITAT AHMEDABAD)
1303/JPR/2024 Anshul Jain and Ors., Tonk It is also well settled that penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act will not be imposed in every case merely because it is lawful to do so. The penalty will not ordinarily to be imposed unless the party obliged, either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of contumacious conduct or dishonest act. Therefore, in light of the above grounds raised by the appellant, the impugned CIT Order dated 27.08.2024 may kindly be quashed and the addition of Rs. 6,61,601/- is set aside. Thus, in light of the facts & circumstances of the case, submission made and the case-laws cited it is humbly prayed that Assessment order dated 18.12.2019 and CIT Order dated 27.08.2024 be quashed and the addition of Rs. 6,61,601/- and consequential levy of interest and penalty charges be directed to be deleted.”
Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record, as well as the relevant provisions of law and the case laws cited by the Ld.AR in support of his case. Since the appellant has filed a common submission in respect of the legal grounds raised, we are also dealing with them as a consolidated ground.
We note from submission and also from the assessment order that it does not establish any direct or even nexus between the seized documents and the alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer has not demonstrated how the seized material, if any, pertains to the appellant or how it evidences the use of unaccounted income for the said investment. In the absence of such linkage, the invocation of Section 69 of the Act is legally untenable. The addition Thus, what the LIC policy payment and investment in the property which is recorded in the ITR already filed by the assessee, addition cannot be made. To drive home to this contention are get support from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case DCIT vs. M/s U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (2023) 150 taxmann.com 108, where the Apex Court has held that:-
In this batch of appeals, the assessments in case of each assessee were under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short, ‘the Act’). As found by the High Court in none of the cases any incriminating material was found during the search either from the assessee or from third party. In that view of the matter, as such, the assessments under section 153-C of the Act are rightly set aside by the High Court. However, Shri N Venkataraman, Learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue, taking the clue from some of the observations made by this court in the recent decision in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3, vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd, Civil appeal No. 6580/2021, more particularly, paragraphs 11 and 12, has prayed to observe that the Revenue may be permitted to initiate re-assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act as in the aforesaid decision, the powers of the re-assessment of the Revenue even in case of the block assessment under Section 153-A of the Act have been saved. As observed hereinabove, as no incriminating material was found in case of any of the Assessees either from the Assessee or from the their party and the assessments were under section 153-C of the Act, the high Court has rightly set aside the Assessment order(s). Therefore, the impugned judgment and order(s) passed by the High court do not require any interference by this Court. Hence, all these appeals deserve to the dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
Respectfully following the above view, we do not see any merit in making those additions. Based on that observation we considered the technical Based on these observations, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITAT No. 1301/JPR/2024 is allowed.
The Bench has noticed that the issues raised by the assessee in are similar to the case of the assessee in & 1303/JPR/2024 and therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts of the case and grounds of appeal so raised by the assessee in ITA nos. 1302 & 1303/JPR/2024. Hence, the Bench feels that the decision taken by us in the case of the assessee in ITA No. 1301/JPR/2024 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Ankit Jain in ITA No. 1302 & 1303/JPR/2024.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/10 /2025.