YAWANTI KUMAR BOLIA,UDAIPUR V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR

ITA 230/JODH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by Meena Boliya, Paras Boliya, and Yawanti Boliya against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur-5. The appeals were consolidated due to common issues and facts across the cases. The primary legal contention was the validity of the assessments made under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation under section 132. The appellants argued that the assessments were illegal and without jurisdiction as no incriminating material was found during the search, and the additions made were contrary to the real facts of the case. The Tribunal, referencing several judicial precedents, including a significant Supreme Court decision, found in favor of the appellants, leading to the quashing of the assessment orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847856 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Jodhpur
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., DCIT Vs. Praveen Balar & Others, Jai Steel (India) v. ACIT, CIT v. Kabul Chawla, Sumati Dayal v. CIT, CIT v. Pramjit Sing, ITO v. Chitalia Builders, CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities, Shreyas Builders & Anr. vs. M.d.Kodnani&ors, Mrs. Nirmal Laxminarayan Grover vs. Appropriate Authority, C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India, Malik Packaging v/s CIT, T.C.N. Menon V/s ITO, Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Limited vs. Inspecting ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O.P. MEENA; VIRTUAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA; PRODUCING PAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Deemed dividend; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Competent authority; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Penny stocks
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 132; 153A; 69; 139

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee By Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate (Virtual) Revenue By Shri O.P. Meena, CIT-DR (Virtual) Date of Hearing 23.03.2026. Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2026. ORDER PER BENCH: These captioned appeals have been filed by different assessees against the separate order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Jaipur-5 [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)]. Sr. No. ITA Nos. Asst. Year Appellant Respondent PAN No. U/S 1. 912, 913 & 914/Jodh/2024 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Meena Boliya SF-14 Gayatri Nagar, H.M. Sector-5, Udaipur DCIT Central Circle – 1, Jodhpur BELPB 5799 B 143(3) /153A 2. 233,234,235 & 236/Jodh/2025 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2017-18 Paras Boliya S-14 Gayatri Nagar, Hiran Magri, Sector-5, Udaipur DCIT Central Circle – 1, Jodhpur ABUPB 6955 C 3. 229,230,231 & 232/Jodh/2025 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2017-18 Yawanti Boliya S-14 Gayatri Nagar, Hiran Magri, Sector-5, Udaipur DCIT Central Circle – 1, Jodhpur ACAPB 2579 H Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos. 912/Jodh/2024 & Others. ITA Nos. 233/Jodh/2025 & Others. ITA Nos. 229/Jodh/2025 & Others. Asst. Years : 2013-14 & Others 2. There are common issues raised by the appellants on similar facts in these appeals, therefore, this group of appeals were heard together and adjudicated together for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. There was a delay of 74 days in filing these appeals. The assessee has explained the reason for the delay with the support of an affidavit attested by notary Udaipur, Rajasthan wherein she has stated that the order of the CIT(A) was received on the E-mail address of her old counsel at [e-mail] and [e-mail], who did not informed in time. It is further stated by the appellant that once it has come to her notice, she has changed the AR who has prepared the appeal. In support, she placed reliance on the judgment of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) where it has been advocated that a very liberal approach may adopted while considering a case for condonation of delay. The AR pleaded that the assessee has reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal and the said delay may be condoned. The ld. DR has although raised objection to the condonation of delay, however, he could not rebut the contention of the assessee or file a contrary judgment considering a short period of 74 days of delay in filing these appeals. Taking a liberal view, in the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos. 912/Jodh/2024 & Others. ITA Nos. 233/Jodh/2025 & Others. ITA Nos. 229/Jodh/2025 & Others. Asst. Years : 2013-14 & Others light of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision supra, we hereby condone the short delay and admit these appeals. 4. Having heard both the sides and perusal of record, we find that the appellants in this bunch of 11 appeals in the case of Meena Boliya, Paras Boliya and Yawanti Boliya have raised common legal issues and disputed amounts on similar facts except variation in the quantum disputed. We first take up the appeals in the case of Meena Boliya where ITA No. 912/Jodh/2024 with respect to assessment year 2013-14 is taken as a lead case for discussion of facts and adjudication of the issues, where the assessee has raised following grounds: 1. The impugned order u/s 153A rws 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 17.08.2021 as well as the action taken u/s 153A and notices u/s 143(2) or other notices are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons or bared by limitation and further contrary to the real facts of the case, hence the same may kindly be quashed. 1.2 The search action taken u/s 132and consequent proceedings are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons, against the provisions and procedures as per law and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence all the consequent notices as well as the subsequent proceedings invalid, illegal, and bad in law hence liable to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos. 912/Jodh/2024 & Others. ITA Nos. 233/Jodh/2025 & Others. ITA Nos. 229/Jodh/2025 & Others. Asst. Years : 2013-14 & Others 1.3 The ld.CIT(A) has also erred in passing the exparty order without Providing the opportunity of being heard in gross breach of law which are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case against the provisions a 2. Rs.3,55,000/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining/confirming the addition of Rs.3,55,000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash payment u/s 69 for purchase of land ignoring the other material 2 and facts. The addition so made by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is also contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law hence the same is illegal, bad in law, against the principle of natural justice, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 3. The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234A, B,C. The 3 interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full. 4. That the appellant prays your honour indulgences to 4 add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing. 5. In ground no. 1 and 2, the appellant assessee has challenged validity of the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act as illegal and bad in law and without jurisdiction. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos. 912/Jodh/2024 & Others. ITA Nos. 233/Jodh/2025 & Others. ITA Nos. 229/Jodh/2025 & Others. Asst. Years : 2013-14 & Others 6. The assessee is having income from pension, consultancy, interest income from other sources and agriculture income. She has filed original return on 29.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 3,40,000/- for the assessment year 2013-14. A search and seizure action was carried out u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act at the residential premises of the assessee and locker no. 236 ICICI Bank, B.N. College Campus, Udaipur, Rajasthan on 31.07.2018 along with other premises belong to others group. Consequent to search, notice u/s 153A dated 23.07.2019 was issued and in compliance to the aforesaid notice, assessee filed a return of income on 23.07.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 3,40,000/- as declared in the original return of income declared u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act. The assessment was completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without any reference to incriminating material. The total income was assessed at Rs. 6,95,000/- with an addition of Rs. 3,55,000/- u/s 69 on account of un-explained cash payments although which were claimed to be made as per cash balance available in the cash book produced by the appellant assessee. 7. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the finding of the AO by observing that appellant has remained non-compliant at the appellate stage, Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA Nos. 912/Jodh/2024 & Others. ITA Nos. 233/Jodh/2025 & Others. ITA Nos. 229/Jodh/2025 & Others. Asst. Years : 2013-14 & Others however, the Ld. CIT(A) has not addressed the legal issues raised in ground no. 2 as per memorandum appeal filed in Form 35 before the Ld. CIT(A). 8. At the very outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessments in the present case of the appellants for the assessment years under consideration had already attained finality before the date of search and, therefore, in terms of Section 153A read with judicial precedents, no addition could be made in absence of incriminating material found during the course of search. The Ld. AR argued that no documents or evidence had been seized from the assessee which would suggest to make the addition of Rs. 3,55,000/- u/s 69 was on account of unexplained cash payments. The Ld. AR has contended that assessee has duly accounted for all these payments in the cash book as per the details furnished before the AO and the CIT(A) during the course of assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings respectively for the year under consideration. Thus, the AR contended that the assessee has filed all supporting evidences such as cash book, financial statements and bank statement to demonstrate that the source of the cash payment made by her to sellers of land during the year under consideration stands explained. The AR argued that the AO has made this addition without reference to any incriminating materials found during the course of search. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA Nos. 912/Jodh/2024 & Others. ITA Nos. 233/Jodh/2025 & Others. ITA Nos. 229/Jodh/2025 & Others. Asst. Years : 2013-14 & Others 9. The Ld. AR has submitted that it is settled law that the incriminating material/ documents are mandatory to be found and seized for issuing u/s 153A of the Act in the case of unabated assessments of the assessee. The appellant has argued and contended that there was no incriminating material found during the search and the addition made by the AO in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, invoking the provisions of Section 153A for the year under consideration is illegal. In support, he placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 Vs. AbhisarBuildwell P. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 6580/Del/2024 dated 24.04.2023. 10. Recently the Jodhpur Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Praveen Balar & Others in ITA No. 287/Jodh/2023 for A.Y. 2011-12, vide order dated 20.10.2025 has observed as under:  After considering the submissions and examining the record, the CIT(A) held that no incriminating document had been brought on record by the Assessing Officer. The addition was based merely on general suspicion regarding penny stock transactions. Relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. ACIT and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Kabul Chawla, the CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the AO exceeded jurisdiction under section 153A in respect of a completed assessment. Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA Nos. 912/Jodh/2024 & Others. ITA Nos. 233/Jodh/2025 & Others. ITA Nos. 229/Jodh/2025 & Others. Asst. Years : 2013-14 & Others  Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.  The Ld. DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the phenomenal rise in the price of the scrip of ACI Infocom, without any financial basis, was itself sufficient to show that the transaction was not genuine. He contended that the assessee's claim of exempt LTCG was a colourable device. The DR placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801) to argue that in tax matters the authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities. Just as the Apex Court disbelieved repeated horse race winnings in Sumati Dayal on the ground of improbability, here also the sudden astronomical gain in the shares of a little-known company should be disregarded as being contrary to normal human conduct.  The Ld. AR, on the other hand, reiterated that the assessment year in question was not pending on the date of search and had already been completed. Therefore, in the absence of incriminating material, the AO had no power to disturb the concluded assessment. He further submitted that all transactions were fully verifiable from contract notes, demat statements and banking records. He relied on the judgments of Jai Steel (India) v. ACIT (259 CTR 281), CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), and the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (454 ITR 212).  We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that during the course of search no document or material was found suggesting that the assessee's share transactions were non-genuine. The Assessing Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA Nos. 912/Jodh/2024 & Others. ITA Nos. 233/Jodh/2025 & Others. ITA Nos. 229/Jodh/2025 & Others. Asst. Years : 2013-14 & Others Officer has not relied upon any seized document but only on general reports of price rigging in penny stocks. This, in our view, cannot be equated with incriminating material found during search as envisaged under section 153A.  The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (supra) has categorically held that in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during search relating to the assessment year under consideration, no addition can be made in respect of completed/unabated assessments.  The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla have categorically held that in respect of completed assessments, additions under section 153A can only be made on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during search. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT V. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. has recently reaffirmed this legal position.  As regards the reliance placed by the DR on the decision in Sumati Dayal v. CIT (supra), we find that the principle of human probability is certainly relevant in appropriate cases. However, the same cannot override the statutory requirement under section 153A that additions must be linked to incriminating material found in search. In the present case, since no such material was found, the application of Sumati Dayal does not assist the Revenue.  Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO. We find no infirmity in his order. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.  In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA Nos. 912/Jodh/2024 & Others. ITA Nos. 233/Jodh/2025 & Others. ITA Nos. 229/Jodh/2025 & Others. Asst. Years : 2013-14 & Others 11. In the present case, there was no incriminating material found during the course of search and, therefore, no addition can be made in the unabated assessments in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 Vs. AbhisarBuildwell P. Ltd. where it was held that in case no incriminating material found during the search, the AO cannot access or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search u/s 132 or requisition u/s 132A of the Act, 1961. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances in this case, the issue is apparently covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd reported in 454 ITR 212 i.e. in absence of incriminating material, the AO had no power to disturb the completed assessment. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the assessment order passed by the AO is without jurisdiction and bad in law and as such it is liable to be quashed. 13. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee has argued its appeal on merits wherein ground no. 3, he challenged that the addition confirmed by Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA Nos. 912/Jodh/2024 & Others. ITA Nos. 233/Jodh/2025 & Others. ITA Nos. 229/Jodh/2025 & Others. Asst. Years : 2013-14 & Others CIT(A) ignoring the detailed submission made by the assessee in compliance to the statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act by the AO and without issuing any show cause notice before making disputed addition in all these appeals. The AR has further stated that the AO had issued notices vide E- proceedings (APB Pg. No. 7-8). The AR submitted that the AO has made the addition in passing the assessment order by invoking the provisions of Section 169 of the Act, which has never been confronted to the assessee either by way of notice u/s 142(1) or by show cause notice. Although, the assessee has produced all the details and bank accounts in reply to the queries of the AO after making submissions by the appellant assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AO has never issued any show cause notice for making the disputed addition of Rs. 3,55,000/- on account of un-explained cash by way of giving any show cause notice which is against the provisions of law. In support he placed reliance on the following judgements:  In the case of CIT v/s Pramjit Sing 231 Taxman 0450(P&H) it has been held that when Assessee is not given opportunity to confront with material relied upon by AO during assessment proceedings and amount in question cannot be treated as loan given by Company to Assessee being deemed income as per provisions of S. 2(22) (e), no addition can be made on account of deemed dividend Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA Nos. 912/Jodh/2024 & Others. ITA Nos. 233/Jodh/2025 & Others. ITA Nos. 229/Jodh/2025 & Others. Asst. Years : 2013-14 & Others  ITO v/s Chitalia Builders 90 CCH 405(Guj) it has been held that Insofar as the deletion of addition is concerned, we find that the A.O was not confronted with any defects in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. The A.O has not given any valid reasons for not accepting the cost shown by the assessee though he accepts that the method of accounting was mercantile. Hence, in our opinion, the deletion was justified.  In CIT v/s Oasis Hospitalities 333 ITR 119(Del) it has been held that In IT Appeal No. 2093 of 2010 and IT Appeal No. 2095 of 2010, the assessees filed copies of PAN, acknowledgement of filing IT returns of the share applicant companies and their bank account statements for the relevant period, i.e., for the period, when the cheques were cleared. However, the parties were not produced in spite of specific direction of the AO instead of taking opportunities in this behalf. Since the so-called directors of these companies were not produced on this ground coupled with the outcome of the detailed inquiry made by the Investigation Wing of the Department, the AO made the addition. This addition could not be sustained as the primary onus was discharged by the assessee by producing PAN, bank account, copies of IT returns of the share applicants, etc. The AO was influenced by the information received by the Investigation Wing and on that basis generally modus operandi by such entry operators is discussed in detail. However, whether such modus operandi existed in the present case or not was not investigated by the AO. The assessee was notconfronted with the investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing or was given an opportunity to cross- examine the persons whose statements were recorded by the Investigation Wing. As regards discrepancies found by the AO in the bank statement, suffice is to Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA Nos. 912/Jodh/2024 & Others. ITA Nos. 233/Jodh/2025 & Others. ITA Nos. 229/Jodh/2025 & Others. Asst. Years : 2013-14 & Others mention that the bank statements that were filed by the assessee were provided by the shareholders and were computer printed on the bank stationery. The same were filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings without any suspicion of their being incorrect. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was never confronted by the AO that there are discrepancies between the bank statements filed and the statements directly called by the AO. However, even after considering the alleged discrepancies, it does not follow that the amount of share capital was the undisclosed income of the assessee. Even the correct bank statements as claimed by the AO reveal that the assessee has received cheques from the shareholders. Therefore, there is no merit in these two appeals, which are accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself.-CIT vs. K.C. Fibres Ltd. (2010) 187 Taxman 53 (Del) followed.  Thus the AO has made the addition without providing any opportunity of being heard to the assessee nor he issued any show cause notice before making the addition and invoking the Sec. 69. During the course of assessment proceeding the Id. AO only required the assessee to file the detailsas per query letter. In response thereto the assessee admittedly filed the details. After receiving details he did not asked the assessee and directly made the addition and invoked the provisions of Sec. 69 which is illegal, invalid and liable to be deleted. In support we are enclosing herewith the all the notices issued by the Id. AO and order sheet (PB1- 8).The Id. AO has not brought any allegation in the notice of the assessee before making the addition and invoking the sec. 69 and it was mandatory on the part of the Id. AO to issue the specific show cause notice to this effect asking to the assessee as to why the income should not be faxed as above before doing so. It is Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA Nos. 912/Jodh/2024 & Others. ITA Nos. 233/Jodh/2025 & Others. ITA Nos. 229/Jodh/2025 & Others. Asst. Years : 2013-14 & Others very settled legal position that a person (assessee) is assessee is determined and charged or taxed in the manner as entitled to opportunity to show cause as to why not the income of the proposed by the Assessing Officer but in the instant case no such type of opportunity had been provided hence the addition so made may the principal of natural justice and against the law. Thus how the Id. AO can make the addition of alleged unexplained income and also kindly be deleted. But the Id. AO has failed to do so, which is against liable to be deleted, in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Limited cannot invoke the provisions of Sec. 69. Hence the entire additions are v/s Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP). Malik Packaging v/s CIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon V/s ITO 96 ITR 148 (Ker).  Thus it is the settled law that no addition can be made without issuina the show cause notice or without confronting to the assessee.  In the case of Shreyas Builders & Anr. vs. M.d.Kodnani&ors.* (2000) 161 CTR 0527: (2000) 242 ITR 0320 it has been held that A perusal of the show-cause notice shows that it neither discloses the material nor the reasons. It is a cryptic notice. It does not indicate the material on the basis of which the Appropriate Authority reached the tentative any reason why the Appropriate Authority has reached the tentative conclusion that the transaction is undervalued. It also does not disclose seen here that in ground (b) of the petition a grievance in this regard conclusion that the transaction has been undervalued. It is further to be has been made by the petitioners and in the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent/ competent authority, the competent authority does not state the reasons for non- disclosure of the material as also the reasons in the show-cause notice. The basic approach of the authority is erroneous. Unless the Appropriate Authority Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA Nos. 912/Jodh/2024 & Others. ITA Nos. 233/Jodh/2025 & Others. ITA Nos. 229/Jodh/2025 & Others. Asst. Years : 2013-14 & Others discloses the reasons why it person to whom the show-cause notice is issued would not be able to put up a defence. Thus issuance of such show-cause notice would defeat the very purpose for which the show-cause notice is required to be issued. A show-cause notice which does not disclose the material on the basis of which the Appropriate Authority has reached the tentative conclusion that the transaction has been undervalued and the reasons for reaching that tentative conclusion is a defective show-cause notice and, therefore, an order made on the basis of that show-cause notice would be an incompetent order and, therefore, liable to be set aside. Mrs. Nirmal Laxminarayan Grover vs. Appropriate Authority (1997) 139 CTR (Bom) 40: 1995(2) Mh. L.J. 755: TC $3.267 followed; C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India (1992) 108 CTR (SC) 304 r/w (1993) 110 CTR (SC) 179: (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC): TC S3.142 relied on. 14. The Ld. DR has objected to the legal issue and supported the impugned order on merits, however, he did not controvert the facts and the judgment cited by the Ld. AR or furnished a contrary judgment. 15. Admittedly, in the present case, no incriminating material have been found during the course of search hence no addition can be made in absence of incriminating material found and seized during the search as it was an unabated assessment in the case of the assessees. 16. Following the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of CIT Central-3 Vs. AbhisarBuildwell P. Ltd (supra) the assessment order passed by AO u/s Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA Nos. 912/Jodh/2024 & Others. ITA Nos. 233/Jodh/2025 & Others. ITA Nos. 229/Jodh/2025 & Others. Asst. Years : 2013-14 & Others 153A r.w.s. 143(3) in absence of incriminating material with respect to unabated assessment for the year under consideration held to be void ab initio and bad in law and as such, the assessment order is quashed. 17. Considering the factual matrix of the case and judicial precedents, the addition made by AO without issuing show cause notice and disproving the claim of the assessee on merits is held to in violation of settled principles of law. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 3,553,000/- made u/s 69 of the Act is deleted. 18. The issues raised and facts discussed in ITA Nos. 913 & 914/Jodh/2024, Asst. Years 2014-15 and 2015-16 in case of Meena Boliya, ITA Nos. 233,234,235 & 236/Jodh/2025 with respect to Asst. Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 in case of Paras Boliya and ITA Nos. 229,230,231 & 232/Jodh/2025 with respect to Asst. Years 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18 in case of Yawanti Boliya are similar to the issues and facts discussed in ITA No. 912/Jodh/2024 with respect to Asst. Year 2013-14 in case of Meena Boliya, therefore, our observation and finding given in ITA No. 912/Jodh/2024 shall be applicable to all other ITA Nos. Mutatis mutandis, ordered accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA Nos. 912/Jodh/2024 & Others. ITA Nos. 233/Jodh/2025 & Others. ITA Nos. 229/Jodh/2025 & Others. Asst. Years : 2013-14 & Others 19. In the result, the captioned bunch of appeals is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/03/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR PAREEK) (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 27/03/2026. Nimisha Sr. PS Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER, Printed from counselvise.com "