TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1707
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as lead case. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- as unsecured loan given during the year by the appellant towards the income of appellant on protective basis. The addition made on presumption is illegal & void. The assessment made on the protective and substantive basis without application of mind by the learned Assessing Officer. The addition made u/s. 69A of the IT Act, 1961 on protective basis. 2. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,77,600/- as unexplained bank deposits made during the year by the appellant u/s. 69A ignoring the fact that such amount was deposited having the legitimate and disclosed source of income. 3. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,51,297 /- as income from unexplained sources u/s. 69A ignoring the fact that such amount was disclosed having the legitimate source of income. 4. The learned CIT (A) has erred on facts and law while confirming the addition of Rs. 17,28,897/- (4,77,600+12,51,297) invoking section 69A of the Act, which is against the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vide impugned appellate order dated 24.10.2025. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal have already been referred to in foregoing paragraphs (A) and (A.1) of this order. In support of admission of additional grounds, the following written submissions were made from the assessee's side: Accordingly, the aforesaid ground is purely a legal plea and deserves to be admitted by this Hon'ble Tribunal in view of the decision as stated below. 1- National Thermal Power Co. Limited, Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Reported in 229 ITR 383 (In the Supreme Court of India) Held, that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arose from the facts and found by the Income Tax Authorities and having a bearing on the tax liability of the Assessee. 2- Orissa Cement Limited Vs. Court). Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 250 I.T.R. 856 (In the Delhi High Court) Held, that the Tribunal had the discretion to allow or not to allow a new ground to be raised but where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....R. 383 (SC), C.I.T. Vs. Rayala Corporation (P) Limited (1995) 215 1.T.R. 883(Madras) and C.I.T. Vs. Bhopal Sugar Industries (1997), 143 C.T.R. (M.P.) 240; (1998) 233 I.T.R. 429 (M.P.) relied on. 6- (B.1) No objection was expressed from the side of Revenue, to admission of additional grounds. (B.2) In view of foregoing paragraphs (B) and (B.1) of this order, and after due consideration of written submissions made from the side of the assessee, the additional grounds are admitted. (C) At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that no incriminating materials against the assessee were found in the course of search under section 132 of the Act. Further, he submitted, the assessee's case fell in the category of unabated assessment. He also contended that the issue is settled in favour of the assessee, by orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pr.CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) / 454 ITR 212 (SC) and Dy.CIT vs. U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 108(SC) / 454 ITR 441 (SC) wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, that no addition can be made, in the cases ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt statement seized at the time of search under section 132 of the Act was pertaining to a Bank Account which was already considered in computing the assessee's income shown in return of income. He also submitted that there were no materials on record to show that the Bank Account statements seized under section 132 of the Act were not considered already for computation of the assessee's income. He also submitted that there was no material on record to show that any transactions reflected in the Bank Account statements were not already considered for calculating the assessee's income shown in the return of income. Therefore, he submitted, the Bank Accounts statement seized under section 132 of the Act cannot be considered as incriminating material. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue reiterated that the additions were made on the basis of Bank Account statement seized in the course of search under section 132 of the Act, therefore, it cannot be said that no incriminating material was found in the course of search under section 132 of the Act. However, the learned Departmental Representative did not bring any materials for our consideration to show that the Bank Acc....