2026 (4) TMI 1176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 15.10.20245 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 separate assessment orders dated 02.03.2024 & 29.02.2024 respectively passed u/s 147 of the Act. The assessee has also filed Cross-objections. 2. At the time of hearing, it was stated that the issues involved in both captioned appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross-objections filed by the assessee for captioned assessment years are common, interlinked and arising from the search action on the assessee and other persons. Thus, both the appeals filed by the Revenue alongwith Cross-objections filed by the assessee are heard together and accordingly, adjudicated by this common order. 3. First we....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lleged that in the said paper, in addition to the declared consideration, a sum of INR 1,89,10,000/- is noted as cash payment and accordingly, 50% of the share of assessee being INR 94,55,000/- was added as undisclosed income u/s 69B of the Act and provisions of section 115BBE of the Act were also invoked. 6. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 15.10.2025, allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition made. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein all the Grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are with respect to the deletion of addition of INR 94,55,000/- made by the AO. 8. Before us, Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue vehement....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of the order of Ld.CIT(A). 10. Heard the contentions of both parties at length and perused the material available on record. Ld.CIT(A) while deleting the addition, after considering the entire facts and the submissions made, at page 18 of the order had drawn following conclusion:- "In light of the above discussion and stated judicial pronouncements, it is abundantly clear that: * The seized document is unauthenticated and non-corroborated and without any name & date, no reference to property and without any signatures. * No evidence has been referred to in the assessment order which proves the existence of cash payment or unaccounted investment. * The presumption under section 292C stands rebutted....