Section 153A Additions in Completed Assessments Quashed by ITAT Jodhpur

Mahaveer Jeerawala Vs DCIT (ITAT Jodhpur)

No Section 153A Addition Without Incriminating Material in Completed Assessments: ITAT Deletes ₹10.20 Lakh
Additions for Four Completed Assessment Years Deleted

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, deleted cash deposit additions aggregating ₹10.20 lakh for Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2017-18, holding that additions under Section 153A could not survive in completed assessments without incriminating material found during search.

For Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20, however, the Tribunal restored the disputed additions to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for limited verification. These years did not qualify for the same protection applicable to completed assessments.

The order was delivered by Judicial Member Amit Shukla and Accountant Member Girish Agrawal.

Search and Cash Deposit Additions

A search under Section 132 was conducted on 19 February 2019 in connection with the Rajlaxmi Group, Jodhpur. The assessee’s residence was also covered.

The Assessing Officer examined cash deposits in the assessee’s bank accounts across six assessment years. The assessee explained their source through an opening cash balance, cash receipts from accounting work, withdrawals and gifts from relatives, supported by a year-wise cash flow statement.

The officer rejected the explanation principally because the opening cash balance of ₹6,50,471 lacked documentary support. After accepting portions of the deposits as sourced from accounting income, the balance amounts were added under Section 69A and taxed under Section 115BBE.

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the additions.

No Seized Material Linked to Deposits

For Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2017-18, the assessee argued that the assessments were unabated, meaning no assessment or reassessment was pending on the search date.

The Tribunal accepted this position. Original returns had been filed, and the time for issuing scrutiny notices had expired. Nothing on record established that proceedings remained pending when the search occurred.

More significantly, neither the assessment orders nor the appellate orders identified any seized document or search material having a nexus with the cash deposits.

The Commissioner (Appeals) had stated that the assessments were based on incriminating documents, but had not identified those documents. The Tribunal found this conclusion unsupported by the record.

Supreme Court Ruling Applied

Following Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that additions in completed assessments under Section 153A require incriminating material discovered during search and connected with the addition.

Here, the additions arose from regular bank statements already available, rather than material found and seized during search.

The Tribunal consequently deleted:

• ₹3,10,000 for Assessment Year 2014-15;
• ₹97,000 for Assessment Year 2015-16;
• ₹2,73,000 for Assessment Year 2016-17; and
• ₹3,40,000 for Assessment Year 2017-18.

Since these additions were deleted on the legal ground, the arguments concerning their merits and settlement disclosures became academic.

Why the Same Relief Did Not Apply to Later Years

For Assessment Year 2018-19, the original return had been filed on 2 June 2018. The period for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) had not expired when the search occurred.

The Tribunal therefore treated it as an abated assessment year, in which the Assessing Officer could assess total income without restricting additions to incriminating search material.

Assessment Year 2019-20 was the search year. Its return was filed after the search, and assessment was completed under Section 143(3). It was not a completed assessment on the search date.

Accordingly, the absence-of-incriminating-material argument did not secure deletion for either year.

Group Settlement Disclosure Requires Verification

The assessee submitted that the Rajlaxmi Group had offered approximately ₹63.36 crore as additional income in settlement proceedings arising from the same search. It was claimed that the disputed amounts were included in that disclosure.

The Tribunal found that the authorities had not verified this contention. It directed examination of whether the additions formed part of the group cash offer accepted by the Interim Board.

Any amount so covered must be deleted to avoid double taxation. The Tribunal did not presume that the entire disputed amount stood covered.

Cash and Jewellery Issues Sent Back

The remand covered the ₹2,80,000 cash deposit addition for Assessment Year 2018-19 and three additions for Assessment Year 2019-20: ₹1,73,900 in bank deposits, ₹1,00,000 in cash found and ₹4,47,314 for jewellery.

The Assessing Officer must examine the cash flow statements and supporting evidence, including explanations concerning stridhan, family gifts and accumulated savings, and decide the remaining additions afresh.

The assessee must furnish necessary documents and receive a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Thus, four appeals were allowed outright, while the appeals for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 were allowed for statistical purposes, with their merits left open.

Cases Discussed

• Kushal Jain Vs DCIT, ITA No. 835/Jodh/2025, 07/08/2026 (ITAT Jodhpur). Relied upon by the assessee concerning an addition arising from the same search which was held to be covered by additional income offered in Rajlaxmi Group settlement proceedings. The Tribunal required factual verification of the corresponding claim in the present appeals.
• Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., (2023) 454 ITR 212; Civil Appeal No. 6580 of 2021 and connected appeals; 24/04/2023 (Supreme Court). Followed by the Tribunal for the principle that additions in completed or unabated assessments under Section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material discovered during search.
• Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd., (2016) 387 ITR 529 (Gujarat High Court). Referred to within the Supreme Court extract in Abhisar Buildwell concerning the requirement of incriminating material for additions to completed assessments.
• Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Kabul Chawla, (2016) 380 ITR 573; 28/08/2015 (Delhi High Court). Referred to in the Supreme Court extract as the High Court authority whose approach to completed assessments was approved.
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar Vs Satya Narain Patni, [2014] 46 taxmann.com 440; D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 196/2010; 07/04/2014 (Rajasthan High Court). Relied upon by the Assessing Officer when accepting 1,350 grams of gold jewellery with reference to CBDT Instruction No. 1916.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JODHPUR

These are six appeals filed by assessee against separate orders of ld. CIT(A)-5 Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2014-15 to 2019-20. Details of impugned orders are as under:

2. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all six appeals filed against assessment orders dated 24.06.2021 passed by ld. DCIT Central Circle-2 Jodhpur [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’]. Orders for AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19 are passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3). Order for AY 2019-20 is passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b).

2.1. Issues raised in ITA Nos. 907, 908, 909, 709 and 708/JODH/2025 are identical except for variation in quantum. ITA No. 710/JODH/2025 raises these issues along with additional issues on cash and jewellery found during search. Search action and issues raised by the assessee are common to all six appeals. Accordingly, all appeals are taken up together for adjudication by passing this consolidated order.

3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 907/JODH/2025 (AY 2014-15):

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,10,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter referred as “the Act”] made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act on 24.06.2021, in case of an unabated assessment in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of search & seizure action that took place on 19.02.2019 therefore decision of Hon’ble Apex court in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. 454 ITR 212 (SC)] was squarely applicable.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,10,000/- u/s 69A of the Act made by the Ld. Assessing Officer even as the appellant was not required to maintain books of accounts and the said cash from verifiable sources such as opening balance, receipts of revenue and capital in nature, were deposited in the bank account and therefore such sum cannot be treated as unexplained money in an assessment under section 153A as well as under the explicit provisions of the section 69A.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,10,000/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer disregarding the detailed submission of the appellant, which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

3.1. Grounds in ITA Nos. 908 and 909/JODH/2025 (AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17) are identical to those extracted above except for amount of addition. Amount is Rs. 97,000/- in ITA No. 908 and Rs. 2,73,000/- in ITA No. 909.

3.2. Grounds in ITA Nos. 709 and 708/JODH/2025 (AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19) are also identical except for amount of addition and text of ground no. 2. Amount is Rs. 3,40,000/- in ITA No. 709 and Rs. 2,80,000/- in ITA No. 708. Ground no. 2 in these two appeals reads as under (amount in ITA No. 708 being Rs. 2,80,000/-):

On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,40,000/- u/s 69A of the Act made by the Ld. Assessing Officer even as the appellant was not required to maintain books of accounts and the said cash from verifiable sources such as opening balance, receipts of revenue and capital in nature, were deposited in the bank account duly disclosed by the appellant in the original return of income and therefore the said bank account can not be treated as incriminating material in the first place and further such sum cannot be treated as unexplained money in an assessment under section 153A as well as under the explicit provisions of the section 69A.

3.3 Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 710/JODH/2025 (AY 2019-20):

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’] on 24.06.2021 thereby disregarding the submissions made by the appellant.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,73,900/- u/s 69A of the Act made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of cash deposit in bank account in absence of incriminating material found during the course of search & seizure action.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,73,900/- u/s 69A of the Act made by the Ld. Assessing Officer even as the appellant was not required to maintain books of accounts and the said cash from verifiable sources such as opening balance, receipts of revenue / capital in nature, were deposited in the bank account duly disclosed by the appellant in the original return of income and therefore the said bank account can not be treated as incriminating material in the first place and further such sum cannot be treated as unexplained money in an assessment u/s 143(3) as well as under the explicit provisions of the section 69A.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 1,00,000/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in respect of cash found during the course of search & seizure action despite the fact that appellant had submitted all necessary explanations and documentary evidences.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 4,47,314/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in respect of jewellery found during the course of search & seizure action despite the fact that appellant had submitted all necessary explanations and documentary evidences.

3.4. All the grounds raised by the assessee in all the six appeals fall under three heads:

A. The legal plea that additions in completed assessments u/s 153A cannot be made in absence of incriminating material. This is ground no. 1 in ITA Nos. 907, 908, 909, 709 and 708 and ground no. 2 in ITA No. 710.

B. The plea on merits of additions u/s 69A on cash deposits. This is ground nos. 2 and 3 in ITA Nos. 907, 908, 909, 709 and 708 and ground nos. 1 and 3 in ITA No. 710.

C. The plea on addition of cash and jewellery found during search which is ground nos. 4 and 5 in ITA No. 710.

4. Brief facts of the case are that a search action u/s 132(1) was carried out on 19.02.2019 on Rajlaxmi Group, Jodhpur. Assessee was covered in the search. Residence of assessee at 68 Aashapurna Nagar Pal Road Jodhpur was searched. Consequent to search, jurisdiction over assessee was transferred to Central Circle-1 Jodhpur by order u/s 127 of Pr. CIT-I Jodhpur dated 29.07.2019. It was later transferred to Central Circle-2 Jodhpur by order u/s 127 of Pr. CIT (Central) Jaipur dated 29.12.2020.

4.1. For AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19, assessee filed returns on 08.01.2020, reporting same income as originally returned. For AY 2019-20, assessee filed return u/s 139 on 31.08.2019 reporting total income of Rs. 2,92,480/-. This return was filed after the search.

4.2. Additions made by ld. AO in all six years are u/s 69A. Assessed incomes are as under:

4.3. Ld. AO noted cash deposits in bank accounts of assessee. Assessee explained source by an opening cash balance of Rs. 6,50,471/- in FY 2012-13 and cash income from accounting work. A year-wise tabular reply was filed. Ld. AO found that no documentary evidence was produced for opening cash balance. Ld. AO treated part of deposits as made out of cash income from accounting work. Balance was added u/s 69A and brought to tax u/s 115BBE. Year-wise position as recorded by ld. AO is as under:

4.4 In AY 2014-15, ld. AO found deposits of Rs. 62,000/- in IDBI Bank account and Rs. 31,000/- in State Bank of India account, aggregating Rs. 93,000/-. These were treated as explained out of accounting income. Ld. AO further noted a cash deposit of Rs. 3,10,000/- on 16.12.2013 in a loan account held with Punjab National Bank jointly with wife of assessee Smt. Anita Jeerawala. Ld. AO added this amount in hands of assessee as assessee himself admitted that cash belonged to him. No action was taken in case of Smt. Anita Jeerawala.

4.5. In AY 2019-20, ld. AO made two further additions on the basis of items found during search. Cash of Rs. 1,41,690/- was found at residence. Ld. AO added Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s 69A and treated balance as savings. Gold jewellery weighing 1,457 gms valued at Rs. 44,78,444/- was found at residence and in two lockers. Silver items weighing 2,276 gms valued at Rs. 71,328/- and diamonds valued at Rs. 37,500/- were also found. Following CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 and decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Satya Narain Patni [2014] 46 taxmann.com 440 (Raj.), ld. AO allowed 1,350 gms of gold jewellery. This was computed for assessee, his wife and three unmarried daughters. Balance 107 gms was valued at Rs. 3,163.42 per gm giving Rs. 3,38,486/-. Ld. AO added Rs. 3,38,486/- along with silver of Rs. 71,328/- and diamonds of Rs. 37,500/- aggregating Rs. 4,47,314/- u/s 69A.

4.6. Assessee challenged the additions before ld. CIT(A). In AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18, assessee raised a plea that additions were made despite no incriminating material found and seized in search and that assessments had attained finality. Assessee also challenged additions on merits. In AY 2018-19, only the plea on merits was raised. Written submissions along with year-wise cash flow statement were filed. Ld. CIT(A) dealt with the plea on incriminating material in AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18 by observing that the order u/s 153A was passed on the basis of incriminating documents seized during search. No such document was identified. On merits, ld. CIT(A) observed that no documentary evidence was produced for opening cash balance. Ld. CIT(A) held that assessee had made a story to justify cash deposits. Ld. CIT(A) further observed that funds can be easily transferred through RTGS or online methods in this electronic age and there was no requirement to deposit such huge cash. Additions were confirmed in all years.

4.7. In AY 2019-20, assessee filed additional grounds before ld. CIT(A) against addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on cash found and Rs. 4,47,314/- on jewellery. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs. 1,73,900/- on same reasoning as in other years. On jewellery ld. CIT(A) held that assessee failed to justify source of excess gold, silver and diamonds with documentary evidence and made only vague submissions. Addition of Rs. 4,47,314/- was upheld. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19 were unabated years. No assessment or reassessment was pending on date of search. In such a case, additions u/s 153A can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found and seized during search. Assessment orders do not refer to any seized material having nexus with the cash deposits. Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the order was passed on the basis of incriminating documents seized without identifying any such document. Bank entries in regular bank account cannot be incriminating material found in search. Reliance was placed on decisions in Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 454 ITR 212 (SC).

5.1. On merits, ld. Counsel submitted that assessee is an individual not required to maintain books of account. Source of cash deposits was explained by a year-wise cash flow statement filed before ld. AO. Cash income from accounting work was offered to tax in returns on a year to year basis. Rejection of explanation solely for want of documents for opening cash balance is not justified. Mere non-production of documents for opening cash balance cannot make an explained and reconciled deposit unexplained. Ld. AO must bring cogent material on record to reject explanation. Cash flow statement furnished by assessee is extracted below for ready reference:

5.2. Ld. Counsel submitted that Rajlaxmi Group filed an application for settlement before Income Tax Settlement Commission on 26.12.2019 pursuant to this search. Additional income of approximately Rs. 63.36 crores was offered. Group cash offer so made encompasses the transactions and amounts forming subject matter of impugned additions. Income already offered in hands of group entities cannot be taxed again in hands of assessee. Reliance was placed on decision of coordinate bench in Kushal Jain v. DCIT ITA No. 835/Jodh/2025 order dated 07.08.2026 arising from the same search. As submitted, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- added in hands of assessee in that case formed part of additional income offered by M/s Rajlakshmi Industries in its settlement application. Settlement application was acted upon by Interim Board. Coordinate bench held that addition in hands of assessee cannot survive. Ld. Counsel prayed that additions be deleted on this ground independently.

5.3. Ld. Counsel submitted that additions in AYs 2015-16 to 2019-20 are on identical facts and deserve the same treatment.

6. We have heard rival submissions and perused material placed on record. Search was carried out on 19.02.2019. Additions in all six years are u/s 69A on cash deposits in bank accounts of assessee. Ld. AO rejected the explanation of assessee only because opening cash balance of Rs. 6,50,471/- was not supported by documents. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed additions. For AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18, the first question is whether additions can be sustained in absence of incriminating material. If this is answered in favour of assessee the contention on settlement and the merits of additions are rendered academic for these years. AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20 stand on a different footing. For these years the questions are whether the amounts added stand covered by the group cash offer made before Income Tax Settlement Commission and whether the additions are otherwise sustainable on the evidences furnished. We take up these years later.

6.1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra) has settled the legal position. Para 13 of the decision reads as under:

“For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra) and the decisions of the other High Courts taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of the completed assessments in absence of any incriminating material.“

[Emphasis supplied by us by bold and underline]

6.2. It follows that in a completed assessment ld. AO can make an addition u/s 153A only if incriminating material is found and seized in search and has nexus with the addition. AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18 were unabated years on date of search. Assessee had filed original returns for these years before the search and time for issue of notice u/s 143(2) had expired. For instance original return for AY 2014-15 was filed on 07.10.2014 and for AY 2017-18 on 26.09.2017. Notices u/s 153A were issued on 06.12.2019 and returns were filed on 08.01.2020 reporting same income as originally returned. Assessment orders do not record that any assessment was pending on date of search. Ld. CIT(A) has also not recorded any finding to the contrary. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any assessment or reassessment was pending on 19.02.2019.

6.3. We have examined assessment orders for these years. Additions are made on cash deposits seen in bank statements of assessee. Orders contain only a general line that search record regarding assessee was observed and examined thoroughly. No seized document or other material found in search is identified. Nexus of any such material with cash deposits is not shown.

6.4. Ld. CIT(A) held that order u/s 153A was passed on the basis of incriminating documents seized during search. No document is identified in his order. This finding does not find support in assessment orders. Ld. CIT(A) has also not examined the ratio of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra).

7. We also note that certain assumptions in orders of ld. CIT(A) are incorrect vis-a-vis the record. In AY 2014-15, addition is on cash deposit of Rs. 3,10,000/- in joint loan account with Punjab National Bank. Ld. CIT(A) has discussed only deposit of Rs. 62,000/- in IDBI Bank account while confirming this addition. Ld. CIT(A) has also referred to AY 2016-17 in brief facts of this year.

7.1. In AY 2018-19, plea of absence of incriminating material was not raised before ld. CIT(A). As discussed in para 10.1 below assessment for this year was pending on date of search and stands on a different footing. The plea is therefore not available to assessee for AY 2018-19 and its admission need not be considered.

8. We now turn to settlement. Assessee claims that Rajlaxmi Group filed an application for settlement on 26.12.2019 and that impugned amounts form part of group cash offer. Records of settlement application and order of Interim Board are with Revenue. Authorities below have not examined whether amounts added in hands of assessee are covered by the group cash offer. Income already offered and taxed in hands of group cannot be taxed again in hands of assessee. This aspect needs factual verification. Additions for AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18 are deleted on the legal ground as discussed in above paragraphs so that this aspect is rendered academic for these years. It remains relevant for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20 which are dealt with in subsequent paragraphs.

9. In view of above, we hold that AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18 were unabated years on the date of search. Additions in these years are made u/s 153A on cash deposits seen in regular bank accounts of assessee. Bank statements were already available and are not material found and seized in search. Neither assessment orders nor orders of ld. CIT(A) identify any seized document or other material having nexus with the additions. Finding of ld. CIT(A) that orders were passed on the basis of incriminating documents seized is not supported by the record. In AY 2014-15, deposit of Rs. 3,10,000/- in joint loan account with Punjab National Bank is also drawn from bank records and not from seized material. Following the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra), no addition could be made in these completed assessments in absence of incriminating material. Jurisdiction u/s 153A cannot be invoked to assess unabated years in absence of such material. Accordingly, additions of Rs. 3,10,000/- for AY 2014-15; Rs. 97,000/- for AY 2015-16; Rs. 2,73,000/- for AY 2016-17 and Rs. 3,40,000/- for AY 2017-18 are deleted. Ground no. 1 in ITA Nos. 907, 908, 909 and 709/JODH/2025 is allowed.

9.1. Since additions are deleted on the legal ground, ground nos. 2 and 3 on merits in these four appeals are rendered academic and are not adjudicated upon. Contention of assessee on settlement for these years is also not adjudicated.

10. AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20 stand on a different footing as discussed in the following paras.

10.1. AY 2018-19 is an abated year. Assessee filed original return for this year u/s 139 on 02.06.2018. Time for issue of notice u/s 143(2) had not expired on date of search which was 19.02.2019. Assessment for this year was therefore pending on date of search and stood abated by second proviso to section 153A(1). In such a year, ld. AO is empowered to assess or reassess total income and the additions are not confined to incriminating material. Ratio of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra) is confined to completed assessments and does not apply to this year. Plea of absence of incriminating material in ground no. 1 in ITA No. 708/JODH/2025 is therefore not available.

10.2. AY 2019-20 is the year in which search took place. Assessee filed return on 31.08.2019 after the search. Assessment was made u/s 143(3). It was not a completed assessment on date of search. Ratio of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra) does not apply to this year. Plea of absence of incriminating material in ground no. 2 in ITA No. 710/JODH/2025 is therefore not available.

10.3. Additions in AY 2019-20 comprise cash deposits in bank of Rs. 1,73,900/-, cash found in search of Rs. 1,00,000/- and jewellery of Rs. 4,47,314/-. Ld. CIT(A) admitted additional ground no. 1.1 against addition of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Order of ld. CIT(A) however records no specific finding on this addition. Conclusion in the order confirms only Rs. 1,73,900/-.

10.4. Assessee has stated that Rajlaxmi Group filed an application for settlement before Income Tax Settlement Commission on 26.12.2019 pursuant to the search of 19.02.2019 offering additional income of approximately Rs. 63.36 crores. According to assesse, the group cash offer covers amounts added in AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20 also. Income already offered in hands of group entities cannot be taxed again in hands of assessee. Coordinate bench in Kushal Jain v. DCIT ITA No. 835/Jodh/2025 order dated 07.08.2026 arising from same search deleted an addition which formed part of additional income offered by M/s Rajlakshmi Industries in its settlement application and acted upon by Interim Board. In present case, records of settlement application and of order of Interim Board are not before us. Authorities below have not examined whether any part of addition of Rs. 2,80,000/- in AY 2018-19 and of additions of Rs. 1,73,900/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 4,47,314/- in AY 2019-20, forms part of the group cash offer.

10.5. Assessee has also furnished a year-wise cash flow statement before authorities below. For AY 2018-19, it explains cash deposits of Rs. 3,80,000/- out of opening balance and cash income from accounting work offered to tax. For AY 2019-20, it shows closing cash balance of Rs. 1,51,289/- as on 31.03.2019 against cash of Rs. 1,41,690/- found on 19.02.2019. On jewellery, assessee has submitted that it comprises ‘stridhan’ of wife and gifts on birth of three daughters and savings of years of marriage and that further documents can be furnished. Ld. CIT(A) held submissions to be vague without examining these. These evidences require verification. We therefore restore AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20 to ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for limited purposes of verfication. Ld. JAO shall verify whether any part of addition of Rs. 2,80,000/- in AY 2018-19 and of additions of Rs. 1,73,900/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 4,47,314/- in AY 2019-20 forms part of group cash offer made before Income Tax Settlement Commission and accepted by Interim Board. Additions made shall be deleted to that extent to avoid double taxation. Ld. JAO shall further examine documentary evidences furnished by assessee on cash deposits in both years and on cash found and jewellery in AY 2019-20 along with decisions cited and shall decide balance additions afresh in accordance with law.

11. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to make all relevant submissions as required, to substantiate the claim made by it. Assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20. Assessee shall cooperate and furnish necessary details and documents. Having restored AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20 for limited purposes of verification, grounds on merits of additions and on violation of natural justice in ITA Nos. 708 and 710/JODH/2025 need no separate adjudication at this stage and are left open.

12. In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 907, 908, 909 and 709/JODH/2025 are allowed and appeals in ITA Nos. 708 and 710/JODH/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in terms of Proviso to Rule 34(4) of Income Tax

(Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 on 03 November, 2026