Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2019-20 challenged the addition of Rs. 14 lakhs as unexplained under Section 69B, based on incriminating material found during a search on a third-party group. The lower authorities had treated this amount as unexplained and upheld the assessment.
Held
The tribunal found that the addition was uncorroborated and no cross-examination opportunity was provided, similar to a connected case. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 14 lakhs under Section 69B read with Section 115BBE was not sustainable and was deleted.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was the sustainability of an addition made under Section 69B for an unexplained amount, particularly when based on uncorroborated material and without providing cross-examination opportunities.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 144, Section 69B, Section 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Noida’s order dated 01.09.2025 in case no. CIT(Appeals) Noida-3/10041/2018-19, involving proceedings under sections 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground on merits seeking to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating an amount of Rs. 14 lakhs as unexplained under section 69B of the Act in assessment order dated 06.03.2024 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. We note during the course of hearing that the same is based on some alleged incriminating material found/seized during the course of departmental search carried out on 02.02.2022 in the premises of Mr. Krishna Sharma and Smt. Sheetal Sharma group of cases. This is what made both the learned authorities to assess the assessee for her impugned unexplained amount of Rs. 14 lakhs assessed under section 69B.
Faced with this situation, the assessee refers to pages 91 to 100 in the case records indicating the tribunal earlier coordinate bench’s order dated 22.08.2025 passed in the connected cases (AY: 2019-20) concluding that not only the said addition remained uncorroborated but also no cross-examination opportunity has been afforded to all the parties. The very factual position continued herein as well as we find no distinction of facts
2 | P a g e or law pinpointed at the Revenue’s behest. We thus conclude that the impugned section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE addition of Rs.14 lakhs made in the assessee’s hands is not sustainable. The same stands deleted therefore.