DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHENNAI V. SUBBIAN MURUGANATHAM, ANDALPURAM

ITA 3298/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the ld.CIT(A) which had deleted an addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- made by the AO. The addition was initially based on the allegation that the assessee had advanced a cash loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to Shri Seetharaman, supported by promissory notes. The assessee denied these allegations, claiming the documents were forged and not signed by him. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting the lack of original documents, absence of corroborative evidence, and failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination, which are essential for substantiating such claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705558 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Prarthana Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, CIT v. Ashwani Gupta, CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd., CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal, Bangodaya Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT, B. Ramakrishnaiah v. ITO, M. Anpukutty v. State of Kerala
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: R. VENKATA RAMAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Reassessment proceedings; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained investment; Document seized; Documents seized; Onus to prove; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Loose papers; Opportunity of cross examination; Non passing of speaking order; Audi alteram partem; Tangible material
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 69; 139

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु क ुमार गिरि, न्यागयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा ,लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष । BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ITA Nos.3298/Chny/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai Vs. Subbian Muruganatham, E-1, Varaoaradha, Vasudhara Apartments, TPK Main Road, Andalpuram, Tamil Nadu-625 003. [PAN:AGNPM4651L] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr. R.Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 02.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–19, Chennai [‘CIT(A)’ in short], arising out of the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 passed u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short) by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle–2(3), Chennai (‘AO’ in short), in relation to the assessment for the Assessment Year (‘AY’ in short) 2017- 18. 2 ITA No.3298/Chny/2024 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the total income on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act without appreciating that the said advance was part of Statement of Fact (SOF) of Sri Seetharaman, (Director of M/s. Visvas Promoters Pvt.Ltd) before the Income Tax Settlement Commissioner & therefore true as per the mandates of SOF thereon. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the said promissory notes bears names and addresses of witnesses and the repayment confirmation bears signature of the assessee in Tamil and is notarized by B Vijaysankar (Advocate) thereby making it a document admissible as evidence in a court of law under the Civil Procedure Code 1908. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in observing that no opportunity of cross examination was provided to the assessee to cross examine Sri. Seetharaman when the assessee himself had never sought an opportunity to cross examine Sri.Seetharaman during the assessment proceedings. 5. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings, the order of Ld CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and that of Assessing Officer may be restored. 3. Sans unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 08.08.2017, declaring an income of Rs.4,04,050/-. Subsequently, the AO received information indicating that the assessee had allegedly advanced a cash loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to one Shri Seetharaman. Based on this information, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing a notice u/s.148 of the Act on 30.03.2021.In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 09.04.2021, declaring the same income as originally returned. Thereafter, a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 13.01.2022, followed by a notice u/s.142(1) of the Act on 12.02.2022. 4. That based on the alleged cash loan transaction, the AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee, seeking an explanation as to why the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- should not be treated as the assessee’s income, considering it was not disclosed in the return of income for the impugned assessment year. In response, the assessee categorically denied having advanced any such loan to Shri Seetharaman. The assessee submitted that his primary sources of income were limited to rent and interest income and that he did not possess the financial capacity to extend such a substantial amount. However, the AO was not convinced and rejected the assessee's explanation. The AO 3 ITA No.3298/Chny/2024 noted that Shri Seetharaman had submitted ‘six promissory notes’ before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, purportedly evidencing the receipt of a cash loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the assessee during the period from 01.08.2016 to 01.11.2016. These promissory notes allegedly having the signature of the assessee on the reverse side of the documents.In view of this evidence, the AO found the assessee’s explanation to be unconvincing and proceeded to treat the sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as an unexplained investment u/s.69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, by passing an order dated 23.03.2022 u/s.147 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 6. During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he had not advanced any cash loan to Shri Seetharaman. It was further contended that the signatures purportedly appearing on the reverse side of the photocopies of the promissory notes, as relied upon by the Revenue, were forged and not of the assessee. The assessee asserted that he uniformly signs in ‘English’, whereas the impugned signatures are in Tamil, thereby casting serious doubt on their authenticity.The assessee also brought to the attention of the ld.CIT(A) that the AO had neither conducted any verification of the genuineness or authenticity of the photocopies of the promissory notes, which were allegedly produced by Shri Seetharaman before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, nor was any joint verification undertaken in this regard. The assessee categorically denied having ever admitted or confirmed the advancement of any sum to Shri Seetharaman. 7. It was further argued that no conclusive or corroborative evidence had been brought on record by the AO to substantiate the claim that the assessee had indeed advanced the said loan. The assessee also challenged the validity of the reopening of the assessment, asserting that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was without the support of any independent or tangible material directly linking the assessee to the alleged loan transaction. Thus, the assessee submitted before the ld.CIT(A) that the addition made by the AO u/s. 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act was unsustainable in law and liable to be deleted. 8. Considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- made by the AO u/s.69 of the 4 ITA No.3298/Chny/2024 Act, on account of alleged unexplained investment by passing an order dated 06.11.2024 by observing as under: “6.1 Before going to adjudicate the various grounds raised it is essential to bring on record the circumstances that necessitated the AO to contemplate addition in the case of the appellant. In the case of the appellant, as per the information available with the department, it was seen that the assessee had advanced loans to the tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to Shri Seetharaman on various dates during the previous year relevant to the A.Y 2017-18. The AO, on the basis of the information on record re opened assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act by issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021. In response the assessee filed return of income on 09.04.2021 by admitting the same income as admitted u/s 139 of the Act. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on was issued, followed by a section 142(1) notice with a request for further details. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had allegedly advanced Rs.1 crore as loan to an individual named Shri Seetharaman, which was not reported in the return. The assessee denied the loan transaction, by stating that his primary income sources were from house property (Rs.2,20,487/-) and other sources (Rs.2,19,633/-), and he lacked the financial means to make such a large loan. However, evidence in the form of six promissory notes, presented by Shri Seetharaman before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission, confirmed loans from the assessee. The promissory notes were signed by the assessee, which contradicted his denial. Consequently, the AO added the amount of Rs.1 crore as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act for the AY 2017-18 and completed the assessment by passing order u/s 147 of the Act on 23.03.2022. In this back ground the various grounds raised are adjudicated. 6.2 While going through the grounds raised in the grounds of appeal for all the years under consideration, it can be seen that the grounds raised revolves around the core issue of addition of Rs. 1 Crore made u/s 69 of the act based upon the submission of one Shiri Seetharaman before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission. In view of this the undersigned is of view to adjudicate the grounds raised issue- wise rather than ground-wise. 6.3 As evident in the assessment order, the AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act based solely on information regarding a claim made by Shri. Seetharaman before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission. This claim alleged that the Appellant had advanced a loan of Rs.1 crore to Shri. Seetharaman. The mere assertion by a third party, without any independent corroboration or direct evidence linking the Appellant to this transaction, raises serious questions regarding the validity of the reassessment. The Act mandates that there must be tangible evidence or credible information warranting the reopening of an assessment, which, in this case, is completely absent. 6.4 At the outset, the addition of Rs.1 crore to the appellant's income is predicated primarily on the existence of promissory notes allegedly signed by the Appellant. The appellant in this regard has made a detailed submission, the relevant extract are reproduced here as under. “Documentary evidences that is Promissory notes only which is forged. Source not ascertain. The Assessing Officer also followed the same without any further verification and made non speaking order and not proving this source of credit.” 5 ITA No.3298/Chny/2024 6.5 As evident in the assessment order, these documents have not been subjected to rigorous scrutiny to establish their authenticity. The AO failed to present any additional evidence to substantiate the claim that the assessee has advanced substantial loans to Shri. Seetharaman. The reliance on the promissory notes, without further investigation into their legitimacy, falls short of the evidentiary requirements as established by the Act. The promissory notes submitted by Mr. Seetharaman as evidence have been called into question, particularly regarding the signatures. The relevant extract of the appellant’s submission in this regard is reproduced here as under:- “The Assessing Officer went on to add Rs.1,00,00,000/- as income with an assumption that I had signed on the reverse of promissory notes not accepting my contention that I had not advanced the loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and the signature on the reverse of the promissory notes are not my signature as I always sign only in English not in Tamil as it appears in the promissory notes.” “All these repayments recorded sheets does not have any balance of debt outstanding at any point of time and it is shown as signed as 'S. Muruganantham' in Tamil, whereas I always put my signature only in English. I. Copy of the PAN Card issued by Government of India II. Letters issued by Banks 1. Canara Bank 2.Karur Vysya Bank III Driving Licence issued by Government of Tamilnadu. Certifying that my specimen signature is only in English and not in Tamil to show that I put my signature only in English and not in Tamil. It is a fabricated confirmation not a genuine document.” 6.6 The Appellant has consistently maintained that he does not sign documents in Tamil, which casts doubt on the validity of the signatures on the promissory notes. Furthermore, the unusual practice of signing on the reverse side raises additional concerns about the authenticity and execution of these documents. The absence of these notes in the possession of the appellant during assessment further undermines their credibility. 6.7 The burden of proving the genuineness of the loan transaction rests with Mr. Seetharaman. Given that he is the one alleging the loan, it is his responsibility to provide verifiable documentation and evidence to substantiate his claim. Without such proof, the addition made by the AO is unsubstantiated. A critical aspect of the Appellant’s challenge is the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Seetharaman. This procedural deficiency is significant, as cross-examination is a fundamental right in legal proceedings that allows for the testing of evidence and credibility of witnesses. The inability to question Mr. Seetharaman undermines the fairness of the reassessment process and violates the principles of natural justice, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice. 6.8 It is a settled law that a statement of a third party cannot be unilaterally utilized against the Appellant as evidence to frame the assessment. Statements of third parties relating to transaction without their adverse statement being tested in cross-examination by the affected party and in the absence of any supporting evidence cannot be made the basis for addition of undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. This was so held in the case of Prarthana Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 112 (Ahd.-Trib.) (Mag.). 6.9 In the case of CIT v. Ashwani Gupta [2010] 191 Taxman 51 (Delhi), addition was made on the basis of the statement of a third party. Copies of the seized documents were not provided to the assessee. No opportunity of cross- 6 ITA No.3298/Chny/2024 examination of the adverse party was given before utilisation of his statement. On these facts, following its own judgment in the case of CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. [2007] 159 Taxman 306 (Delhi), the Hon’ble High Court deleted the addition on the premise that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. 6.10 In a case, in the course of search of the assessee, certain loose papers were seized indicating advance of money and earning of interest. The assessee stated that the papers belonged to his daughter. This was denied by the daughter in her statement. Therefore, addition of the amounts was made in the assessee's hands. On these facts, in CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal [2007] 162 Taxman 3 (Delhi), it was held that the statement of a third party (ie, daughter of the assessee) not subjected to cross-examination cannot be considered relevant or admissible. In the absence of any corroboration by cross-examination, it was held that the seized document was a dumb document. The addition was deleted. 6.11 In the case of Bangodaya Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 182 Taxman 151 (Cal.), additions were made on the basis of some documents (correspondence) relating to a property transaction seized from the premises of a third party. The order was set aside as no opportunity of cross-examination of the connected parties, particularly when it was the case of the assessee that these documents were forged, was afforded. 6.12 In the case of Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT [2008] 170 Taxman 520 (MP), it was held that no addition u/s 69 could be made based on the statement of a third party without affording opportunity of cross-examination of the adverse party. In this case, the assessee contended that the silver articles were purchased from 'R'. However, 'R' denied the transaction in his statement recorded behind the back of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made the addition without allowing cross examination of 'R'. Copy of the statement of 'R' recorded was not provided to the assessee. The Assessing Officer also ignored the affidavit filed by the assessee. He solely relied on the statement of 'R' for the addition. The addition was deleted. 6.13 In the case of B. Ramakrishnaiah v. ITO [2010] 39 SOT 379 (Hyd.-Trib.), the Assessing Officer made addition of a certain amount in the hands of the assessee based on the entry of a transaction relating to a property deal in the books of 'B' who was a third party. No opportunity for cross-examination was afforded to the assessee with reference to the material gathered from the third party. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot base his assessment on the statement and material collected by him to frame the assessment without affording opportunity of cross-examination. The Tribunal did not accept the plea of implied affording of opportunity advanced by the department that the statement of the assessee was recorded on the same issue. The addition was deleted. 6.14 In the case of M. Anpukutty v. State of Kerala [1964] 14 STC 489, it was held that the entries in the name of the assessee in the books of account of a third party would not give jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment by utilising such material unilaterally unless the assessee was afforded opportunity to cross-examine the said party. The assessee can question the said party to explain as to how the relevant entry was made in its books and its nexus with the assessee. 6.15 Therefore, the AO's reliance on the promissory notes and the statements made by Mr. Seetharaman, without conducting an independent inquiry or seeking corroborative evidence, constitutes a violation of established legal principles. The Income Tax Act requires direct and compelling evidence to support additions 7 ITA No.3298/Chny/2024 made to an individual’s income, particularly in cases involving substantial amounts claimed as undisclosed income. The lack of such evidence in this instance raises doubts about the legitimacy of the addition. 6.16 The Appellant has referenced relevant case law to reinforce his position. The principles derived from these precedents emphasize that the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim and that mere documentation, particularly when its authenticity is disputed, cannot serve as sufficient grounds for making an addition. Previous rulings have underscored the necessity of concrete evidence and have favoured the Appellant's stance regarding the scrutiny of loan transactions and documentation. 6.17 Furthermore, the Appellant's declared income of Rs.4,04,050 for the AY 2017-18 presents a significant contradiction to the claim of advancing Rs.1 crore as a loan. The income sources, primarily from house property and other minor earnings, do not support the capacity to lend such an amount. This financial inconsistency further indicates that the addition lacks a reasonable basis. Thus, the AO has failed to substantiate that the appellant’s creditworthiness to advance an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to Shri. Seetharaman. 6.18 In view of the above detailed discussions and the judicial decisions relied upon, it is clear that the addition of Rs. 1 crore to the appellant's income lacks credible evidence and is founded primarily on unverified claims made by a third party. The procedural deficiencies, particularly the denial of cross-examination and the lack of independent verification, violate the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the addition contemplated by the AO u/s 69 of the Act is devoid of merits. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the issue of addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- is hereby treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as un- explained investment u/s 69 of the Act for the AY 2017-18.” 9. The Revenue has challenged the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) by preferring the present appeal before us, whereby the addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- made by the AO u/s.69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act was deleted. 10. The ld.DR submitted that the AO had made the impugned addition in respect of cash loans purportedly advanced by the assessee, based on information received from the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). It was contended that such information, being in the form of promissory notes received from the ITSC, constitutes credible and admissible evidence and, therefore, ought not to have been disregarded. 11. The ld. DR further submitted that the assessee had executed promissory notes in favour of Shri Seetharaman, as evidenced by the assessee's signatures appearing on the reverse side of the said instruments. This, according to the ld. DR, clearly establishes that the assessee had in fact advanced cash loans to the said individual. 8 ITA No.3298/Chny/2024 12. It was furthermore contended that the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on the ground that the assessee had not been afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the concerned individual. The ld.DR argued that since the ld.CIT(A) exercises powers co- terminus with those of the AO, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have provided the assessee such an opportunity himself, rather than deleting the addition outright. 13. In conclusion, the ld. DR prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the AO with directions to (i) afford the assessee an opportunity of cross-examining the relevant witness, and (ii) refer the promissory notes in question for forensic examination in order to verify the authenticity of the assessee's signature thereon. 14. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri R. Venkata Raman, Chartered Accountant, submitted that the solitary basis for the impugned addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- towards an alleged cash loan in the hands of the assessee is the photocopies of certain promissory notes, which were purportedly furnished for the first time by Shri S. Seetharaman before the ITSC. 15. The ld. counsel submitted that a search action was conducted in the case of M/s. Milan Textiles Enterprises Private Limited. In connection therewith, the business premises of M/s. Viswas Promoters Private Limited, as well as the residential premises of its Director, Shri S. Seetharaman, were also covered. During the course of the search, a pen drive was recovered from the premises of Shri Seetharaman, which contained an Excel sheet reflecting noting pertaining to the receipt and payment of cash loans from various individuals. 16. It was contended by the ld.counsel that, pursuant to the search, Shri Seetharaman furnished photocopies of certain promissory notes before the ITSC, alleging that he had obtained a cash loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the assessee. However, the ld. counsel emphasized that these promissory notes were not recovered during the search proceedings conducted at the premises of Shri Seetharaman. Moreover, no statement was recorded from Shri Seetharaman during the course of search proceedings regarding the existence or execution of the said promissory notes. 9 ITA No.3298/Chny/2024 17. The ld. counsel submitted that the assessee has categorically denied for having signed any of the promissory notes on the reverse side, and hence these documents are fabricated. The ld.counsel argued that the AO relied solely on the photocopies of the alleged promissory notes, which were forwarded by the ITSC for joint verification. However, no independent enquiry was undertaken by the AO to verify the authenticity or genuineness of these documents. Hence, the ld. counsel asserted that such photocopies, having not been corroborated or verified, lack any evidentiary value in law, apart from the mismatch of the signatures. 18. Without prejudice to the above and while expressly denying the execution of any such promissory notes in favour of Shri Seetharaman, the ld. counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT v. Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta [(2025) 474 ITR 97 (Del)], to contend that mere photocopies of the alleged documents do not possess evidentiary value and no addition can be sustained solely on the basis thereof. 19. Finally, placing reliance upon the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), the ld. counsel submitted that the ld.CIT(A) had rightly appreciated the facts and legal position, and correctly deleted the addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- made by the AO u/s.69 of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. counsel prayed that the appeal preferred by the Revenue be dismissed and the order of the ld.CIT(A) be upheld. 20. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by both sides and have perused the material available on record, including the assessment order, the statements and evidence relied upon by the AO, and the submissions filed by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings. 21. The primary issue under adjudication pertains to the addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- made by the AO u/s.69 of the Act, treating the alleged cash loans as unexplained investment of the assessee. The basis of this addition rests upon photocopies of certain promissory notes allegedly furnished by one Shri Seetharaman before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. It has been contended by the Revenue that these documents evidence the advancement of cash loans by the assessee. 10 ITA No.3298/Chny/2024 22. Upon careful consideration, we note that the said promissory notes were not recovered in original during the course of search or any other proceedings from the premises of Shri Seetharaman or any related party. We note that the investigation wing has not taken any written sworn statement has been taken from the borrower at the time of search proceedings to correlate these documents to the alleged loan given by the assessee. The assessee, at every stage, has categorically denied having executed or signed the reverse side of the said promissory notes. Despite such categorical denial, no substantive efforts appear to have been made by the AO to independently verify or establish the authenticity or genuineness of the alleged documents. No handwriting expert was engaged, nor was any forensic examination conducted to verify the signatures. The AO has also failed to summon or examine any other party to corroborate the claim that the assessee had indeed advanced the cash in question.More significantly, the AO has not brought on record any independent or corroborative material to substantiate the inference that the assessee had advanced the said loan. The addition is thus based solely on unverified photocopies, containing the mismatched signature on the backside of the promissory notes, which do not carry evidentiary value in the absence of supporting material or examination of the original documents. We also observe that till date there is no explanation on record by the AO as regard to the possession of the alleged original promissory notes whether those are lost, destroyed or in third possession. 23. We further note that the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Seetharaman, whose statement or submission before the ITSC formed the cornerstone of the AO's conclusion. This omission constitutes a serious violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that any evidence collected at the back of the assessee and used against him without affording an opportunity of cross- examination renders such evidence inadmissible and the assessment, to that extent, vitiated. 24. In the present case, in the absence of original promissory notes, lack of any corroborative evidence, mismatch of the signature, and the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the key person whose statements are relied upon, the addition made by the AO is rendered unsustainable in law. The addition fails the test of evidentiary reliability and judicial scrutiny.Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the ld.CIT(A) 11 ITA No.3298/Chny/2024 has rightly appreciated the facts and law in deleting the impugned addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- made u/s.69 of the Act. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) and are not inclined to interfere with the same. 25. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd , day of July-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर.रघुनाथा) (मनु क ुमार गिरि) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (MANU KUMAR GIRI) न्यागयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER चेन्नई Chennai: दिन ांक Dated : 02-07-2025 KB/- आदेश की प्रततललपप अग्रेपषत /Copy to : 1. अपील र्थी/Assessee 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त/CIT, Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. दिभ गीयप्रदिदनदि/DR 5. ग र्डफ ईल/GF "